Thursday, 11 April 2024 - Volume 775 Sitting date: 11 Apr 2024 THURSDAY, 11 APRIL 2024 The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. PRAYERS/KARAKIA BARBARA KURIGER (Deputy Speaker): 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 CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Today, the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 30 April. In that week, the House will consider the first reading of Te Pire mō Ō-Rākau, Te Pae o Maumahara/Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill, the second reading of the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill, and will begin the 10-hour annual review debate. On Tuesday, there will be a 60-minute debate for the House to acknowledge the passing of Efeso Collins. PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: Petitions—there are none? CLERK: There's one. SPEAKER: One? OK. CLERK: Petition of Lance Priestley requesting that the House regulate how much profit Woolworths and Foodstuffs, and the supermarkets they operate, can earn in a financial year. SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Papers—none today. Select committee reports? CLERK: Reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the: Reserve Bank of New Zealand, Financial Stability Report, November 2023 Reserve Bank of New Zealand, Monetary Policy Statement, February 2024 report of the Health Committee on the Ministry of Health, Long-term Insights Briefing 2023 reports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the petition of Hope Cotton petition of Juliana Carvalho. SPEAKER: Those reports are set down for second reading. Other matters for consideration—introduction of bills. CLERK: Repeal of Good Friday and Easter Sunday as Restricted Trading Days (Shop Trading and Sale of Alcohol) Amendment Bill, introduction Consumer Guarantees (Right to Repair) Amendment Bill, introduction. SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for next sitting day. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Finance 1. NANCY LU (National) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen about the economy? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yesterday, I saw that the Reserve Bank's monetary policy committee agreed to leave the official cash rate at 5.5 percent. The committee noted that consumer price inflation is currently above the 1 to 3 percent target range and that a restrictive monetary policy stance remains necessary at this time to bring inflation back within the band. Nancy Lu: When will inflation be back within the 1 to 3 percent target? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: New Zealand has had a cost of living crisis in recent years, with inflation being over 7 percent for the most of 2022. Inflation has been falling since then, and the monetary policy committee is confident that inflation will return to within the 1 to 3 percent band in this calendar year. It is also consistent with the economic outlook Treasury published alongside the Budget Policy Statement two weeks ago. Nancy Lu: Can fiscal policy have an inflationary impact? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. Strong growth in Government spending can have an inflationary impact when the economy is operating above capacity and interest rates are restrictive. Recent history gives us a very salient example of exactly that. The issue of the interaction between fiscal policy and monetary was discussed at the recent monetary policy committee meeting. On the basis of the forecasts in the half-year update and the commitments outlined by the Government in the recent Budget Policy Statement, the committee noted that Government spending is expected to decline as a share of the economy. Nancy Lu: Has the battle against inflation been won? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, I would not say that. While the Reserve Bank is making progress in the battle against inflation, it still currently remains outside the target band, and further work is required to keep future inflation near the 2 percent mid-point. In the Budget Policy Statement, the Government signalled a policy of ongoing fiscal consolidation to bring revenue and expenses back into balance and also to support monetary policy to bring inflation within target and maintain it there. We want to see inflation continuing to come down so that interest rates can eventually follow them, giving New Zealanders cost of living relief and allowing the economy to start growing again. Question No. 2—Finance 2. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Can she confirm that she told the Finance and Expenditure Committee this morning that the Government would be borrowing more in the future, and how much is the Government intending to borrow? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): No, I did not say that. I checked the transcripts, and, as has become a habit from this member, she's paraphrased me in a way that is inaccurate. She also, when we read the transcript, find that the reason that she may not have heard my actual words is that she was interrupting continuously. In fact, what the case is is that what I said was, yes, we will be borrowing. That should not—[Interruption] In fact, what I said was that, yes, we would be borrowing. That should not be a revelation to the member because since the dawn of time, Governments have borrowed in order to finance their activities. If the member wants information about the bond issuance that the Government is doing over the forecast period and wants to learn a bit more about how that works, she can go to the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update on page 45, where it outlines those intentions. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Mr Speaker—supplementary. SPEAKER: Just wait for your friends to quieten down. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Would the borrowing for day-to-day costs, as confirmed by the Minister in the Finance and Expenditure Committee today, be higher or lower if she had not restored interest deductibility and was not pursuing her tax cut package? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: This Government has set a clear goal of having net core Crown debt reduce as a proportion of GDP, in stark contrast with other members in this House, including the one who just asked a question, who said that she would be comfortable with debt increasing. So the position we have is a member opposite who is concerned, suddenly, about structural deficits. And what I would point out to her is that if the Government continued the pattern of extraordinary ineffective spending that has been the case in recent years, the structural deficit and therefore borrowing would have to grow considerably. I can also say—[Interruption] I am trying to help the member with the answer to the question. I can also say that we have committed to a lower operating allowance than that committed to by the previous Government. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she accept that if she did not restore interest deductibility or pursue tax cuts, debt would at least be $11 billion lower, with all things being equal? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, with all things being equal, we would be continuing to plough billions more dollars into wasteful programmes. And the deal we did with New Zealanders was this: we said we're going to spend their money more effectively, we're going to reduce the amount of money on back-office bureaucracy, we're going to stop subsidies for private firms to decarbonise, and we're going to take those savings and we're going to invest them in tax relief. What the member now wants the House to accept is we would do one without the other. Actually, if she's saying that Labour's suddenly woken up and thinks savings are a good idea, then what a great revelation that is! Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she accept that ANZ senior economist Miles Workman is correct that there is a counterfactual that if the Government did not deliver those tax cuts and cut spending as it says it will, it would offset the economic drivers of higher debt, as reported in Stuff? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I have seen the ANZ's response to the Budget policy update in which it identified that the fiscal track and the approach being taken by the incoming Government is more restrictive on spending than the last Government. Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she possibly say that she is not borrowing to pay for her tax package when she confirmed to the Finance and Expenditure Committee today that, ultimately, it is all funded from the same place? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because I am not borrowing for our tax package. Because what we are doing is—[Interruption] They either want the answer or they don't, I guess. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with Nicola Willis, who promised to achieve a surplus in 2026-27, reduce Government debt by $3.4 billion compared with the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update, not borrow for tax cuts, not cut front-line services, and introduce no new taxes; and are there any promises she doesn't intend to break? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Not only do I agree that we will keep our commitments, what I also agree is that it is a very good thing that this Government was elected, because if it wasn't, we would be continuing as a country down a path of deepening structural deficit, of escalating debt, of wasteful spending, and high inflation, and I am so glad that the adults are back in charge. Hon Chris Bishop: What reports has she received about alternative approaches to borrowing and debt? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I have seen a report from Radio New Zealand that said that Labour's finance spokesperson, Barbara Edmonds, said a future Labour Government would consider taking on more debt. [Interruption] SPEAKER: I know that today is the last day of a long sitting block, but that sort of—[Interruption] No one's gone from the House yet, but they may well be close. Question No. 3—Agriculture 3. TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First) to the Associate Minister of Agriculture: What recent announcements has he made? Hon MARK PATTERSON (Associate Minister of Agriculture): In line with recent announcements, on Monday, myself alongside Minister McClay and local Wairarapa MP Mike Butterick embarked upon our first of our nationwide woolshed meetings, in the Wairarapa. We met with a significant turn out. Not only were we outlining Government plans and priorities, we will be also seeking feedback. This Government is actually committed to listening to our farmers, primary sector, and rural communities. Over the next few months, we will be undertaking over 20 of these meetings, from Northland through to Southland. Of special interest to me is seeking input in relation to reviving New Zealand's strong wool sector. Tanya Unkovich: What engagements has he had with the sector? Hon MARK PATTERSON: Recently, I convened a meeting of key industry leadership. These individuals came from both the commercial sector and, crucially, within farming leadership. This is a group that has for far too long had their views poorly canvassed. From this meeting, I have tasked this group with establishing a pathway to a united and recognised industry voice. They are also tasked with exploring alternative pathways to market, capable of delivering much higher returns back behind the farm gate. Tanya Unkovich: What other actions is he taking? Hon MARK PATTERSON: Next week, I'm taking New Zealand wool to the world. I will be leading a delegation of New Zealand wool manufacturing businesses to the International Wool Textile Organisation (IWTO) Conference in Adelaide. We aim to capitalise on the significant increased trend back towards natural and sustainable fibres. These end uses span from traditional carpets and upholstery to exciting new innovations like 3D-printed acoustics and pigments from walls, broken down into the component parts. Only by increasing demand in high-value end uses will we lift returns to our farmers. Tanya Unkovich: What benefit will this bring? Hon MARK PATTERSON: This is the first time, actually, that New Zealand wool has been specifically featured at the IWTO—it is quite a big deal. This represents a significant opportunity to showcase the attributes of New Zealand wool and the innovation of New Zealand's wool manufacturing capability to a large international audience. I am determined that the New Zealand wool sector will make a significant contribution to deliver on the coalition Government's agreement of doubling our exports in the next decade. Hon Damien O'Connor: To the Minister: why did he and his colleagues remove ministerial oversight of the Overseas Investment Office, that will mean that more funds go into foreigners' hands for the planting of pine trees? SPEAKER: Wait—just a minute. I mean, there's been a lot of comment my way about the appropriateness of answers to questions, but, similarly, questions should relate to the— Hon Member: Point of order, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Well, you can have your point of order when I'm finished. The question was "What recent announcements has he made?", and if you're asking about what they have done, that may not be a recent announcement. Hon Members: It was a recent announcement. Hon Peeni Henare: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. SPEAKER: Oh, well in that case—no, no; no, sit down. In that case, we'll carry on. Ask the question again. Hon Damien O'Connor: To the Minister and his colleagues: why was there a recent announcement that ministerial oversight of the Overseas Investment Office would be removed, which means more farms will be sold to foreigners to be planted in pine trees? Hon MARK PATTERSON: Well, that's speculation on the member's part, but I would invite the member to address the question to Minister Penk, who is the relevant Minister. Question No. 4—Environment 4. LAN PHAM (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does she agree with advice from officials in the Our Land 2024 report that "An extractive approach to land reduces nature's ability to sustain itself and provide for us, putting our economy and livelihoods, food system resilience, natural ecosystems, and quality of life at risk"; if not, why not? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the member for her question. I agree that we need to care for our land and our natural ecosystems. This Government absolutely believes that taking a balanced approach is necessary to best support our economy and livelihoods, food system resilience, natural ecosystems, and quality of life. Lan Pham: Is she concerned that extractive industries will soon be able to bypass the environmental protections in New Zealand law, including the Resource Management Act, the Wildlife Act, the Conservation Act, and the exclusive economic zone Act through the Government's proposed fast-track process? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The fast-track consenting bill is before the select committee at this time and so it would be inappropriate for me to make any comment on that. Lan Pham: What advice, if any, was she invited to provide to Cabinet on the environmental risks of allowing extractive industries to fast track projects which are likely to harm natural ecosystems? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I know that the member is very interested in the report and the data that is in the report and, absolutely, policies and decisions that we will be making in the future will be informed by the data and the information that is in this report. Lan Pham: Is she concerned that having a Minister for the Environment outside Cabinet, and no environmental Cabinet committee, means that considerations about the environmental impact of laws and policies are not being given proper weight in the Government's decision making? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: No, I'm not. As a Government, we are absolutely committed to protecting the resources, and this simply shows that we have a range of Ministers that are interested in environmental factors. We will be taking an evidence-based approach to our decision making. So we welcome this report and the data that's within it that will inform our decisions going forward. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Lan Pham: Is she concerned that she has been left out of the decision-making process in the Government's Fast-track Approvals Bill, despite other Ministers being given the power to override legislation that is her ministerial responsibility? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Not at all. I've been very involved in the process, and we are consulting widely and, as we work together as a Cabinet, I've said that there is a wide range of Ministers who have important interest in the environment, and I'm pleased to be one adding to those voices. Question No. 5—Social Development and Employment 5. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What advice has she received from the Ministry of Social Development that informed the Government target of reducing jobseeker benefits by 50,000 by 2030? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I've received lots of advice from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to inform the ambitious target of ensuring more New Zealanders reap the rewards and opportunities a job provides. It's not possible to go through all the advice in the time to answer an oral question, including advice about the substantial increase in jobseeker benefit recipients over recent years and how the target means reversing this trend. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Did the Ministry of Social Development recommend the target of 50,000, and, if not, who did? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: A number of scenarios have been looked at in terms of coming up with a target. We've balanced it with being really ambitious in terms of supporting the number of people into employment, and I'm really proud to have landed on 50,000. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will those on jobseeker support – health condition or disability be excluded from the proposed 50,000 reduction; if not, why not? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: All job seekers deserve the same opportunities to get support and service to focus them on the rewards that work provides. We don't discriminate. We want to use every single day that is available to support people towards work. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How does she intend to reduce the amount of people on jobseeker support – work ready by nearly 50 percent at a time when unemployment is expected to rise? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I accept that we are in really challenging economic conditions that we have inherited as a Government, but I don't shy away from the fact that every person who is either on jobseeker benefit now or may lose a job in the coming weeks and months ahead, MSD, the welfare system will be far more active in supporting people to be ready for work or in work. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will the reduction of 50,000 beneficiaries be purely based on those who exit into work, or will they also include those who exit because they go to prison, move overseas, change relationship status, reach age of eligibility for superannuation, or, sadly, die, and, if all of the above, why does she keep saying the target is about supporting people into work? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: We have nearly 190,000 people today on the jobseeker benefit. This Government is absolutely and deliberately focused on supporting people into employment, and the way we measure our success is to have 50,000 fewer people on the jobseeker benefit by 2030. It won't be easy, but it is a challenge that this Government embraces because we know the opportunities that having a job provides. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to know whether or not the exits of 50,000, or reduced number of 50,000 beneficiaries— SPEAKER: This is not the way to get the answer. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Well, I don't think that she addressed the question, Mr Speaker. Do you want me to explain why, or no? SPEAKER: The problem rule is this, that people asking a question may not get the answer they want, but for them to explain why the answer they wanted hasn't been given is not part of the Standing Orders arrangements. So what I will do is, as much as I've looked at another question I was asked to yesterday, I will look at the Hansard and make a call on that point. But I'll tell you what, to be fair and reasonable, have a supplementary that doesn't come off your list. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: OK. Will the reduction of 50,000 beneficiaries be purely based on those who exit benefit into work? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I don't think I can be any clearer. This is about those who are currently on the jobseeker support benefit—not main benefits; jobseeker support. We want to see 50,000 fewer people receiving the jobseeker benefit support by the year 2030. Question No. 6—Housing 6. JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) to the Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has he made on steps to improve the rental market? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Today, I've announced changes to the Residential Tenancies Act to encourage landlords back into the rental property market. We are reintroducing 90-day no-cause terminations for periodic tenancies, returning landlords' notice periods for ending a tenancy to 42 days in certain circumstances, and we are reintroducing landlords' ability to give notice to end a fixed-term tenancy at the end of a term without giving a reason. We know that waging a war on landlords just ends in pain for tenants—part of the reason why rents have gone up by $170 a week in the last few years. We want to bring balance back to the rental market and bring landlords back into the market. Joseph Mooney: How will reinstating 90-day no-cause terminations improve conditions for renters? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, over the last few years, we have heard from many landlords that without the backstop of 90-day no-cause terminations, they're just unwilling to take a chance on tenants who might have otherwise missed out on the rental market—people leaving prison, for example; people with criminal records; or people at the edges of the rental property market. Giving landlords the backstop of being able to end a tenancy will mean more of them giving people a fair go with the reassurance that if things don't work out, they can end the tenancy. Joseph Mooney: What will these changes mean for Queenstown? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, very positive changes for Queenstown. One of the effects of the 2020 changes to the Residential Tenancies Act to basically make the ending of a fixed-term tenancy almost automatically roll over to a periodic tenancy was the complete reduction in the number of landlords being willing to offer short-term rentals in a market like Queenstown. Instead, landlords decided it was all too hard, and instead those properties ended on Airbnb, actually, which has contributed to people sleeping in tents down by the foreshore in Queenstown and other cases of hardship. I'm also advised that there are other holiday hotspots where this happens, including Waiheke Island and places like Dunedin with the student rental property— Chlöe Swarbrick: Come to Waiheke, Bish—I'll show you. Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, well, I just mentioned Waiheke; it's exactly the point I'm making. So we are going to change that law back to what it was, which will mean that fixed-term tenancies mean fixed term. Tamatha Paul: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can he guarantee that whānau won't be kicked out of rental homes and the neighbourhoods that they're connected to as a result of the policies that he has announced today? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, no Minister can guarantee anything in Parliament, as that member knows, but what I would say is landlords don't kick out good tenants. [Interruption] SPEAKER: We're just waiting. Joseph Mooney: What else is the Government doing to fix the housing crisis? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the Government has a five-point plan to fix the housing crisis. We need improvements to the rental market to make it easier to be a landlord and to be a tenant, but most fundamentally we need to smash the urban limits that are holding our cities back, fix infrastructure settings, and introduce incentives for cities and regions to go for growth. My colleague Minister Chris Penk is working on building and construction changes. We are going to deliver better social housing, and, most importantly, we are going to fundamentally reform the Resource Management Act 1991. Where the last Government failed, we will succeed. Question No. 7—Media and Communications 7. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) to the Minister for Media and Communications: Does she stand by her statement, "Media plays a very, very important role in our democracy"; if not, why not? Hon MELISSA LEE (Minister for Media and Communications): Yes, the media provides an important role in disseminating information and content for the benefit of New Zealand. I'd like to take this opportunity to actually say it has been a deeply distressing time for many journalists, production staff, and longstanding members of the media community this week, and my deepest sympathies lie with them and their families as they navigate the situation. Hon Willie Jackson: Why, given that statement and the unfolding crisis in the media sector, is there nothing for the media sector in the Government's full second-quarter action plan? Hon MELISSA LEE: The impact on the commercial decisions made by TVNZ and Newshub and other media operators across New Zealand is incredibly sad and I want to acknowledge how much of a distressing time it is for everyone involved. I'm focused on helping the industry modernise and innovate so the industry can be more profitable going forward. There is no silver bullet to fix the current situation that TVNZ and Warner Bros. Discovery are facing at the moment. There is a process under way, and I'll have more to say when that process has concluded. Hon Willie Jackson: Does the Minister think she has the confidence of the media sector, and, if so, what does she say to former TVNZ boss and TV3 political editor Bill Ralston, who, I quote, said "The Minister has no idea what she is doing"? Hon MELISSA LEE: I can say that the sector can have confidence in the Government who actually listen to the people. I take no pleasure in the situation happening in Warner Bros. Discovery and TVNZ. There are challenges across the sector, like in many other parts of the New Zealand economy, due to the cost of living crisis. I am committed to working with the sector to support them to modernise and innovate so they can be more commercially viable. There is a process under way, and I will have more to say once that process has been concluded. Hon Willie Jackson: Who is correct, the former TV3 head of news Mark Jennings, who said, "the Minister Melissa Lee is all at sea and appears to have no vision at all." or the very respected Newstalk ZB presenter Heather du Plessis-Allan, who said the Minister is "weird and shady"? SPEAKER: Look, you don't have to answer either of those. Another question? Hon Willie Jackson: Is it the case that, actually, the Minister has no plan, no one supports or believes her, and she has to wait until Winston Peters gets back to do her job for her? SPEAKER: You can answer one part of that multi-legged question. Hon MELISSA LEE: No. I have no responsibility for that member's comments as well. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Does the Minister really have confidence in continuing in the job, given the fact that she has confessed to being "boring", "inarticulate", and "not a magician"? SPEAKER: No, that's not a reasonable question. Try again. Try again. [Interruption] Hang on, just a minute. The member knows that personal reflections aren't the way in which we operate in this House. Without losing any of your allocation, if you want to ask a different question, that would be fine. Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker, these are quotes from her. SPEAKER: Well, they may be, but they're still presented in a manner that is reflective of an individual, which we don't do in this House. So would you like to ask another question? Hon Kieran McAnulty: No. SPEAKER: Well, are you sure? [Interruption] Hon Kieran McAnulty: I think he made his point, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Yeah, but—just a minute—he's sort of run out of broadcast. Question No. 8—Education (Partnership Schools) 8. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) to the Associate Minister of Education (Partnership Schools): Does he agree with the Public Health Communication Centre Aotearoa report on Ka Ora, Ka Ako that "the evidence is clear: Ka Ora, Ka Ako alleviates hunger and less hunger improves school achievement"; if not, why not? Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs): on behalf of the Associate Minister of Education (Partnership Schools): I haven't reviewed the report in detail, but I can say that there are some benefits to the taxpayer-funded school lunch programme and that we will be funding for a revised programme, something that the Labour Government failed to fund— SPEAKER: No need to reference any other party in regard to Government policy. Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Can he guarantee that the quality, nutritional value, and the number of students receiving free lunches will not decline because of these cost-cutting measures? Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: On behalf of the Minister, the Government is committed to looking at the evidence and improving the cost-effectiveness of the taxpayer-funded school lunch programme after the previous Government left it unfunded from 2024. Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Point of order, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Stay on your feet. Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Sorry, you just mentioned before that the Minister should not be attacking the previous Government. SPEAKER: Yeah, but you would have listened to me in the last few days. It's not unreasonable for a Minister to talk about a situation that has been inherited, and the Minister did not step outside that requirement. Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: To the second point of the member's question, I think a lot of people see Ka Ora, Ka Ako as a way of achieving other social goals, like improving nutrition. That may well be the case, but we don't fund the Ministry of Education for health reasons, just like we don't fund health for education reasons. This Government is committed to ensuring that we are putting the policy, with cost-effectiveness, into place. SPEAKER: Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan—you get three. Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Does he agree, then, that we have a collective responsibility to ensure that no child goes hungry in Aotearoa? Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I think it's common sense, and multiple international evaluations tell us that students benefit from receiving food at school. But for the Ka Ora, Ka Ako programme itself, we have limited evidence of its impact on attendance and achievement, and it's very important for us as a Government that we are focusing on attendance and achievement at the heart of our education policies. Laura Trask: What correspondence has he received on the programme? Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: On behalf of the Minister, one teacher has told my office that— Hon Jan Tinetti: Oh, one teacher. Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: —"Only about 40 percent of the students take up the offer of a free lunch." SPEAKER: Just stop for a minute. Just stop. Let them— Hon Carmel Sepuloni: This is what an evidence-based decision-making Government looks like. SPEAKER: Yeah, good. Well, it only takes one person to walk out of here, too, so please answer the question. Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Once again, on behalf of the Minister, one teacher has told my office that "Only about 40 percent of the students take up the offer of a free lunch, depending on what is on offer. The majority of what is taken ends up in the garbage. The college then gives away the remainder to local churches and the iwi. I agree that this needs to be targeted." Another correspondent has written that so much food is left over from one local school that some of it ends up as pig food. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I happen to have Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand with me— SPEAKER: Sorry, you're going to have to speak into your microphone. I didn't hear any of that. Sorry, look, points of order are heard in silence. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: The member quoted from a piece of correspondence to the Minister, and at paragraph 50.6.2, it makes clear that that correspondence is an official document, and even if she doesn't have it with her in the House, I would ask that she table it. SPEAKER: Well, you can ask all you like, but the House won't be doing that. So we'll move now to— Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Speaking to the point of order. SPEAKER: Are you speaking to your own point of order? I've ruled on it. I have ruled on it—well, a few times I have. Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. I seek leave for the Minister to table the correspondence— SPEAKER: Wait a minute. Wait on. Just a little bit of order. I know you get excited about these things. What do you want to do now? You say, "Point of order." Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. SPEAKER: And I say, "Point of order, Ricardo Menéndez March", and you say— Ricardo Menéndez March: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Thank you for recognising my eagerness. I seek leave for the Minister to table the correspondence she just quoted in the previous answer. SPEAKER: Well, are you seeking leave on behalf of another member? I don't think you are. So you're seeking leave on your own behalf? Ricardo Menéndez March: I'm just seeking leave myself. I didn't believe that it needed to be the person asking the question who needs to— SPEAKER: I don't think that's quite how we can progress this one. Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: If we're taking— SPEAKER: Sorry—wait. Dr, please wait till we get a bit of quiet in the House. OK. Away you go. Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: If we're taking individual correspondence, what would the Minister say to student Malachi Iafeta, who said the school lunches mean "Students are a bit more active during class, they're healthier. I know some students who didn't come to school because they didn't want to, and the food has really given them a reason and has actually made them study"? Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I thank the member for his question. We can also respond with equal evidence and correspondence from another relief teacher, who said, and I quote, "I'm a relief teacher at a low-decile school in West Auckland and I can assure you that less than half of the free Government lunches are eaten by the children. They are regularly eaten by only about a quarter of most of the classes, and the rest are binned." Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Then what does the Minister say to the whānau of ākonga at Tikipunga kura, who said that if their tamariki could not access school lunches, they would feel "disheartened, as not all student whānau have the ability to provide lunches for their tamariki", and "devastated, because money is tight"? Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: On behalf of the Minister, what I would say to those people who have corresponded with that member is that this Government is committed to the Ka Ora, Ka Ako programme, however what we're committed to is cost-effectiveness of the programme. We shouldn't be looking at extending how much money we are spending, but we should be looking at making sure it's going to the right places. Question No. 9—Transport 9. TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made on speed limits in Kāpiti? Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Great news. On Tuesday, I announced that the New Zealand Transport Agency has proposed to increase speed limits on the Mackays to Peka Peka and Peka Peka to Ōtaki sections of the Kāpiti Expressway to 110 km/h, with consultation on these changes beginning 22 April. This road of national significance, started by the previous National Government, was designed to a safe standard suitable for 110 km/h, and enabling these expressways to have this speed limit is part of this Government's plan to speed up our economy. Tim Costley: What reports has he seen on the safety benefits of the Kāpiti Expressway? Hon SIMEON BROWN: This particular road, which is having a proposal to increase the speed limit to a 110 km/h, is incredibly safe; started by the last National Government, designed and constructed to a high safety standard. Since the expressway opened, no one has died in a crash on this expressway, and there's been a 70 percent reduction in roads in the Kāpiti district. The coalition Government is committed to delivering safe and new roads of national significance across the country to get people and freight where they need to go, quickly and safely. Tim Costley: How does the proposed change of speed limit on the Kāpiti Expressway fit in with the Government's plan to get New Zealand moving again? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the coalition Government is stopping the previous Government's blanket speed limit reductions and is enabling new and existing roads of national significance to have speed limits of a 110 km/h. Rather than forcing people to slow down, our plan ensures that, when speed limits are set, economic impacts, including travel times and the views of road users and local communities, are taken into account alongside safety. Question No. 10—Justice (Firearms) 10. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Associate Minister of Justice (Firearms): Does she stand by all of her statements and actions in respect of firearms reform? Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice (Firearms)): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, especially my statement regarding the fact that semi-automatic firearms were never banned under his Government. The fact of the matter is that there are over 6,600 licensed firearm owners in New Zealand who have licence endorsements which can allow them to possess a semi-automatic firearm. Semi-automatic firearms were never banned under that member's Government; many were merely transferred on to other firearm licence endorsements such as "prohibited", "pistol", and "collector" endorsements, among others. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Does she stand by her statement regarding reintroducing semi-automatic weapons like those used in the Christchurch mosque attack: "I'm not reintroducing anything. Those firearms [are] already here. In fact, we have 6,600 people who have endorsements to be in possession of those firearms"? Hon NICOLE McKEE: Yes, I do stand by that statement. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Who is correct in relation to high-powered semi-automatic rifles: the police Minister when he said, in response to written questions, "As [of] 1 March 2024 there are 328 persons authorised to possess and use (including firing live ammunition) a prohibited firearm for the purposes of pest control", or the Minister when she said, "we have 6,600 people who have endorsements to be in possession of those firearms"? Hon NICOLE McKEE: Both those statements are correct, but the way that the member has asked the question, I think he needs to go and have a look at the difference between the endorsements and prohibited licences, because, yes, there are 328 pest controllers out there, but there's also a large number of members of the licensed firearms community that can still use those prohibited firearms. Now, there is a difference between what Brenton Tarrant used and what is a centre-fire semi-automatic, and I suggest, if the member would like, I can give him some education in differing and understanding what they both are. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Why did she say that "currently, over 6,600 New Zealanders are licensed to possess semi-automatic firearms" when asked by Mark Cameron in this House on 27 February 2024 "Will her Government allow competitive shooters to use semi-automatics for sporting purposes?", when the question was clearly referring to high-powered semi-automatic rifles which are prohibited for such events? Hon NICOLE McKEE: I'm very confused by that question. For one, there's no such thing as a high-powered semi-automatic—we have rim-fire; we've got centre-fire. And if I may, Mr Speaker, all firearms that are in the wrong hands of the wrong people can actually make damaging and catastrophic effects. But I just kind of wonder—I'm more than happy to sit with the member and work through so that he understands the differences between our different endorsements: prohibited, restricted, and endorsements. Mark Cameron: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What comments has she seen from the Police Association? Hon NICOLE McKEE: I did see a comment from Mr Cahill that read "she is using these figures to try and suggest that semi-automatic firearms are already widely available when they're not". I would suggest that Mr Cahill cease trying to mislead the public. After working adjacent to the firearms community for many years, he will be well aware that semi-automatic firearms can be owned on a number of licence types and licence endorsements. Scott Willis: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What sport does the Minister believe centre-fire semi-automatic firearms are suitable for? Hon NICOLE McKEE: My personal opinion on what I have not taken to Cabinet yet is not a discussion for the House at this stage. When it comes to looking at whether or not there will be, in addition to the sporting exemption that we already have for some users—such as pistols, for example—it needs to be a decision that is made by Cabinet. As yet, I've not had advice on that position, and I'm not ready to take that position to Cabinet. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she stand by her statement, "This Government is the adult in the room, and we are committed to finding a solution to this issue for the benefit of public safety and practical regulation."? Hon NICOLE McKEE: Absolutely. We are definitely the adult in the room. In the 2018-19 year, there were 2,076 conviction charges for firearm-related offences, but in the 2022-2023 year, this has increased to 2,588. This is a 24 percent increase. New Zealanders have not been made safer by the rushed firearm laws, and this Government is wholly committed to righting the wrongs for the past for the benefit of public safety and practical regulation. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does she agree with Tom Mauser, whose son was killed in the Columbine school shooting, when speaking of semi-automatics being used for sport shooting: "I understand that there are people who have fun firing these weapons … But, we have to get beyond fun and we really have to consider the danger.", if so, why is she distracting from the debate on the danger of semi-automatics by suggesting they're more widely available than they really are? Hon NICOLE McKEE: My sympathies go out to all of the families that have been affected by the Columbine shooting, but it is of an important note that we are not America, we do not have their laws, and our laws and legislation will be relative to what we have here in New Zealand and the use of those firearms. Question No. 11—Housing (Social Housing) 11. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Social Housing): What recent announcements has the Government made about emergency housing? Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing (Social Housing)): It is calamitous to see so many whānau in emergency housing, and we've recently announced a target of 75 percent reduction of the number of households in emergency housing by 2030. We want emergency housing, motels, and other accommodation to be a last resort, for a short period of time, for those in genuine need. Tom Rutherford: How realistic is the 75 percent reduction in emergency housing? Hon TAMA POTAKA: The target is deliberately ambitious. We want whānau and tamariki to have safe, warm, and nice homes. Emergency housing should be a last resort, for a short period of time, for those who genuinely need it. The mahi is not a quick fix—it's hard mahi. It requires sustained and coordinated effort, something that, in our role as the Kāwanatanga, as the Government, we are committed to do, and setting a target, rather than talk, focuses attention. Tom Rutherford: What are the kinds of things the Minister will be doing to meet this target? Hon TAMA POTAKA: Tamariki are a big focus. No one wants to see tamariki, our children, growing up in these motels. And the Kāwanatanga has announced a priority one category for whānau with tamariki who have been in emergency housing for 12 weeks or more, prioritising them on the social housing register. As my learned sentinel the Hon Chris Bishop has most recently said, to end New Zealand's cataclysmic housing crisis, we need to use many tools to increase housing supply and to enable more homes and houses for all New Zealanders. Tom Rutherford: Why is there a target for emergency housing and not another part of the housing system? Hon TAMA POTAKA: Emergency housing is the basis of a target because that's where we think we can have a significant impact on vulnerable New Zealanders. Long term, large-scale use of emergency housing is a social, moral, and cultural catastrophe. We can make impact right now by prioritising tamariki in emergency housing—like a mother and her three tamariki who moved into a home in Tūranganui-a-Kiwa recently, who said, "At one stage, we were all living in a tent in a friend's backyard. That's where we were when Cyclone Gabrielle struck, and that backyard got flooded. I've been grateful to have a roof over our heads, even though it has been very cramped and restrictive. Four of us living in a small bedroom in a studio has been challenging." Kia kaha tātou. Mauri ora. [Let us all be strong. Power and wellbeing (to all).] Question No. 12—Veterans 12. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister for Veterans: Does he agree with RSA National President Sir Wayne Shelford that "New Zealand has legislation that is discriminatory and inadequately provides for New Zealand's veterans of military service"? Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Veterans: I want to thank the member for his question, and I also want to acknowledge all those who have served in the New Zealand Defence Force. I agree that there are improvements which can be made so we can provide more support for veterans. I would like to acknowledge the Royal New Zealand RSA for their consistent advocacy for veterans in New Zealand. Greg O'Connor: What will the Minister, given that it is two weeks until Anzac Day, be telling those veterans who have been removed from the waiting list for Veterans' Independence Programme (VIP) services? Hon ANDREW BAYLY: Well, first of all, I dispute the premise of that question. What has happened is that all those who have served, the Chief of Defence has reallocated the staff to process the unacceptable backlog of health claims for those veterans with medical conditions associated with their service. And the reason he has done that is the dreadful legacy that the previous Government has left us to deal with, because it's taking up to 361 days to process these medical claims, and it is an outrageous situation for New Zealand veterans. Greg O'Connor: Does the Minister accept that less services will be available to veterans now as a result of the decision not to proceed with the applications of those on the waiting list? Hon ANDREW BAYLY: I dispute the claim that there will be less services available. Greg O'Connor: Is the Minister prepared to guarantee funding to the RSA to provide the services currently provided by the Veterans' Independence Programme? Hon ANDREW BAYLY: In terms of funding, the veterans at the moment receive about $131 million for covering pension costs, and there's another $30 million for administering the schemes, including the VIP scheme that the member talks about. That funding is something that's under review, in terms of whether that could be increased, but that level of funding is something that keeps and supports New Zealand veterans, and it is rightly so. TE KOROWAI O WAINUIĀRUA CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILL First Reading Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I present a legislative statement on the Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill. SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I move, That the Te Korowai o Wainuiārua 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.] In July last year at Raetihi Marae, Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, representing the interests of Uenuku, Tamakana, and Tamahaki signed a deed of settlement with the Crown. Today, there are members of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua watching from the public gallery who have travelled to Wellington for the occasion of the first reading. There are many more members of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua who are watching this first reading online from their rohe and around the motu. I extend a warm welcome to you all and thank you for being here with us, both in person and online, to witness the first reading of your bill. The first reading represents a valuable opportunity to reflect on the relationship between Te Korowai o Wainuiārua and the Crown. In May 1840, 15 rangatira signed the Raukawa Moana Treaty sheet at Wanganui, including Te Peehi Tūroa and his son Te Peehi Pākoro Tūroa. They expected a relationship with the Crown that was based on fairness, justice, and honour, and that their tino rangatiratanga over their lands and taonga would be protected. Instead, the Crown did not uphold the promises it made and Te Korowai o Wainuiārua have paid the price for our nation's development. Large tracts of their land were purchased or taken for public works, including for the North Island main trunk railway line to create scenic reserves for defence purposes, for electricity generation, and for two of New Zealand's national parks. By the 20th century, the iwi of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua were virtually landless, yet they have worked tirelessly with strength and perseverance to retain their language, their tikanga, and their identity. In 2015, the Crown recognised the mandate of Uenuku Charitable Trust to represent the people of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua to negotiate a comprehensive historical Treaty of Waitangi settlement. An agreement in principle was signed in 2018. On 29 July 2023, the Te Korowai o Wainuiārua deed of settlement, Te Tihi o te Rae, was signed at Raetihi Marae following a ratification process by the Te Korowai o Wainuiārua claimant community. I thank the people of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua for their perseverance and patience during this journey to achieve this signing. We remember and pay tribute to Te Korowai o Wainuiārua tīpuna who have suffered grievances, and acknowledge the leaders and loved ones of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua who have passed away over the course of the settlement; it's been a long journey since the first Wai claims were submitted in relation to this claim in the 1980s, and they have waited a long time to be heard. I acknowledge and thank the negotiators, the Chair of Uenuku Charitable Trust, Aiden Gilbert; the lead negotiator, Chris McKenzie; and negotiators Paora Haitana and Steve Hirini. I also wish to recognise the work of their legal counsel, Deborah Edmunds. I acknowledge the people of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua of Uenuku, Tamakana, and Tamahaki, and acknowledge their patience throughout the settlement's negotiations which were long and sometimes difficult. On the Crown's side, I want to acknowledge my predecessors, the Hon Andrew Little and the Hon Christopher Finlayson. I'd also like to thank our chief Crown negotiator, Katherine Gordon, for her hands-on leadership throughout these negotiations. I also want to thank the former chief Crown negotiator, Rosemary Banks, for her work on the early part of the negotiations. I also have a significant number of ministries and agencies who have been involved in the settlement and I would like to thank you all for your support. The Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill seeks to give effect to the settlement package as outlined in the legislative statement. The settlement includes financial and commercial redress valued at $21.7 million, and cultural redress funding of $6.85 million; the return of sites of cultural significance, including three sites that will be jointly vested in Te Korowai o Wainuiārua and neighbouring iwi; 12 commercial properties, including Crown Forestry land at Erua and the former prison site at Waikune; recognition of the vision of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua to establish an eco-sanctuary at Pokaka to reinvigorate native flora and fauna, including an overlay classification and conservation management redress; the right to nominate a member of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua to the Tongariro Taupō Conservation Board and the establishment of a strategic advisory committee to ensure that they have governance-level engagement on conservation issues; relationship redress with a range of Crown agencies including the National Emergency Management Agency, a first in Treaty settlements. This will give both parties an opportunity to work together to coordinate local responses to emergencies in both Tongariro and Whanganui National Parks. The deed of settlement also recognises the importance to Uenuku, Tamakana, and Tamahaki of the Tongariro National Park and Wanganui National Park, including the maunga Ruapehu, Tongariro, and Ngāuruhoe. The deed records the Crown's commitment to negotiate collective redress over the national parks in good faith. Today is about looking forward while acknowledging the past and the long and difficult journey it has taken to get here. The redress contained in this bill provides a foundation that will benefit the people of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua for generations to come. It will support them in their future endeavours and in realising their aspirations for their iwi. Te Korowai o Wainuiārua: this is the first reading of three, and I look forward to hosting you again here to support the passage of your legislation through the House. I consider the bill should proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee; I commend this bill to the House. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. Rt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour): [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] It's a great honour for me to speak to the first reading of this settlement legislation for an iwi that I whakapapa to. My whakapapa to this iwi is through my grandmother Iriaka Rātana, who was a member of this House as well, from 1949 to 1969. It's a real honour for me to speak to this piece of legislation on her behalf because her people, my people, have arrived here. I'm also proud to wear my pākohe taonga. It will be forever a reminder to me of this day. Pākohe is actually included in this legislation under one of the mechanisms, as part of this legislation allows the post-settlement entity to be able to go and collect pākohe from the riverbeds in certain agreed areas, along with a number of other cultural materials that are important to this iwi. I want to talk about the iwi for a little moment, because many people might not have heard of Uenuku, Tamakana, and Tamahaki. Actually, that's part of the breaches of the Treaty by the Crown. The identity of this iwi is part of the grievance, in my opinion, and it's really important that those names are heard in this Whare. It's important that the hard work that went in for over a long, long period of time to get to this day. I want to acknowledge a couple of people: Robert Cribb—affectionately known as "Uncle Boy Cribb". I want to mention him because he passed away last year, and he would have loved to be here. But I mention his name because—and my whānau know this—I am quite Ngā Wairiki Ngāti Apa - centric. I was the chair of that side of me for quite some time. I used to turn up to different meetings representing Ngāti Apa and "Uncle Boy" would be there representing as well. I knew exactly what he was going to say every time I saw him: "You know your Tamahaki, ae?" "Yes, uncle, I know that. But I'm here representing my koro, not you." But I wanted to mention his name so that his name goes into the Hansard—that's why. I also want to acknowledge Aiden Gilbert [Authorised te reo text Māori to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] I say that because it's been a long, hard road, and I know you have carried a lot. So I acknowledge that. Some people say that this process is flawed, and it is. But one of the things that every iwi that goes through this process has to ask themselves is what can this process deliver and what can it not deliver, and they ask themselves the important question: can we live with that? Dozens of iwi before this iwi, Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, have made that decision to do it, and so we come today for this. Some will say that this is a pittance, and that's OK—that's their opinion. But let me tell you that dozens of iwi that have come through this process and have flourished, and that is my aspiration for you as well. You should not be left behind. The other thing too we asked ourselves is make sure that we don't allow the next generation to carry the burden of the intergenerational trauma caused by the breaches to Te Tiriti by the Crown. We have an obligation to make sure that they don't have to carry it. We have an obligation to make sure that what they do is enjoy the benefits of this settlement and that they have the responsibility to grow the settlement asset for future generations as well, and I've got no doubt about it that with the tenacity of the likes of Aiden Gilbert and others, that that will happen. So that's actually my main message for this. SPEAKER: It was a very long one! Rt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE: I won't add to what the Minister has said. The Minister has covered everything: the cultural redress—and there's a lot. It's a huge amount of cultural redress. I'll mention one: the cultural revitalisation, and the first one was actually negotiated by Ngāti Apa. In any settlement, that was the first one ever done. This one is six times bigger, and I congratulate Te Korowai o Wainuiārua for getting that amount of cultural revitalisation. That's going to make a huge difference. So, to all of you, I'm going to leave it there. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] STEVE ABEL (Green): Kia ora. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui, Uenuku tangata, uri of Tamahaki and Tamakana. When I heard the weeping of your whaea in the pōwhiri today, it was profoundly moving and it felt like the grief of 200 years, and it could not but touch us to hear that level of feeling. You have been wronged and you have been taken from and disrespected, and today this House acknowledges that wrong. The Crown is here to acknowledge that it has taken part in that wrong and it has committed that wrong, but once again it is you who shows generosity, because—pardon me, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Oh, no, I got you—you're right. STEVE ABEL: It is Te Korowai o Wainuiārua that shows generosity, because you come here at short notice to restore the honour of the Crown. Again, it is the generosity of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua. I want to acknowledge that these settlement processes are divisive for iwi; we hear this time and again throughout the motu. I'll quote you, Mr Gilbert—I hope you don't mind—because you put it so succinctly: no iwi would say redress was enough. "What is enough? [It is] never going to be enough if we measure things. If we do calculations and equate things, these are just crumbs off the table. But the healing has to start… as long as the Crown doesn't continue to do wrong. In the 10 years of doing negotiations, they were still tripping over themselves and continuing to do what they did to us historically as people. Therein lies the challenge." Mr Gilbert, you said the settlement means "we can say who we are and speak for ourselves." So I want to acknowledge that this recompense is a tiny fraction of what was lost, and if this process has been divisive, I hope that today marks the beginning of your binding back together. If there is not justice for Māori, there can be no legitimate place for tauiwi in these lands. We as Te Pāti Kākāriki stand by that principle of justice for Māori. We are not content with the idea of full and final settlements, I just want to say, but I want to salute you for your commitments, among other things, to this principle of healing that you speak of and acknowledge that it must be on the basis that the Crown does no more harm. That is the challenge to all of us in this House, that we take seriously the ending of the harm being done to iwi and to Māori and to hapū throughout this nation, and the policies that undo and take away the self-determination of iwi. I also want to salute your efforts to restore the mana of the nature and the wildlife in your rohe. One of the terrible pathologies of colonisation is the destruction of nature. As an ecologist, it breaks my heart to think of what has been destroyed and lost: the magnificent forests of the central North Island and other parts of the nation, and the wildlife and the birds. I wish you all the greatest success in restoration of the kākā. Here today we stand, we acknowledge the wrong that has been committed, and we bless you on your journey for healing. We as a House unanimously acknowledge that there is a way forward for this nation in recognition of those wrongs and in making amends for those wrongs. However small those amends are, the intention must be to bind us together in relationship for the good of the future. Kia ora koutou. MARK CAMERON (ACT): Before I open my introductory remarks to Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill speech, I just want to acknowledge my wonderful researcher Tangi Gardiner, who worked very, very diligently and hard on this, to help me understand this settlement process. I also want to mihi to those here today, all the ancestors that you bring with you in spirit. We acknowledge the time it has taken to get here, and the people who are and all of those that are not able to be here with us today but are physically somewhere else in the country. We hope this settlement will allow you the resources, time, and space needed to heal and move forward together. Our aim today is to acknowledge the wrongs of the past and to make the necessary legislative changes required to allow iwi, hapū, and all the people hurt by the actions of the Crown the long-awaited apology that you all deserve. This bill acknowledges that by the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in Whanganui in May 1840, the ancestors of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua sought to build a partnership based on fairness, justice, and honour. The bill acknowledges that the Crown breached that agreement and failed to protect iwi, hapū, and whānau in Te Korowai o Wainuiārua. I mentioned the tragedy between the Moutoa Island, where whānau were fooled to pick between the Kīngitanga and the Pai Mārie, and the protection of European settlers. We want to acknowledge that this tore apart the region, separated families, and caused loss of life and trauma to both sides. The battle of Ōhoutahi caused the death of multiple ancestors of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua. Both situations breached the agreement that the iwi made with the Crown and eventually led to the rushed purchasing of some 411,196 acres, in which the Crown has acknowledged they moved with—and I quote—"unreasonable haste". The iwi was never offered any opportunity to object to confiscations and ended up by losing ownership of multiple blocks of land, including their ancestral mountain. We also stand here to acknowledge today that in the second half of the 20th century, Te Korowai o Wainuiārua children who attended Crown-established schools were punished for speaking their own language and this has contributed towards the decline in te reo Māori among iwi and Te Korowai o Wainuiārua people. Contrary to popular belief, ACT has always supported the Treaty settlement process. The Treaty is a good, fantastic founding document that brings us all, as Europeans and Māori, together, so that we all support this historical Treaty settlement process. We believe in this process. It is a good process, and we are glad that we are able to back it right, make good with the wrongs of our past, and move forward as one nation. We support full and fair and final Treaty settlements and are glad to stand absolutely in support of this bill. Hon SHANE JONES (NZ First): [Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] New Zealand First stands to acknowledge that we, obviously, will support this settlement. I've said in our reo that a number of us have been involved in this journey, and, in my case, since 1986, as the translator for Matiu Rata's lawyer David Baragwanath in the original Muriwhenua fisheries claims that kicked off in 1986, along with Sir Graham Latimer and the Maunganui claim. But, today, we are referring to the tangata whenua from that part of the North Island which I regarded as the coldest that God ever put breath into. During the 1990s, my wife and I would occasionally go to this area because my wife was a niece of the Sonny Pehi whānau, and quite a few Ngāpuhis married into these people in this part of Aotearoa. Of course, the Pehi whānau produced New Zealand's famous champion boxer. I can assure you, to get on the wrong side of the whānau of my late wife demonstrated you learn about the ability of boxing. So there's a great deal of warmth today in the House. In a funny way, this is quite a complicated settlement. Although it's modest in fiscal size, its complication derives from the many instruments that are in here. I want to read into the record that on page 79, in clause 114, I have finally found some tangata whenua who agree with minerals: pākohe; ōnewa; matā tūhua, which we call obsidian; paru. In fact, I recently was in Te Arawa, where they have perfected healing with the various paru Waiariki, one-uku, clay. In the 1980s, it was Baye Riddell and Manos Nathan, the son of the famous Māori Battalion leader Uncle Ned Nathan, who was captured in Crete and was nursed back to life by his wife's people. He eventually married one of their whānau, and they—his son—were the people in the 1980s who revived the utilisation and, quite frankly, evolved the utilisation of uku into clay pottery. They were supported by the Navajo, who came at that stage in the 1980s and stayed on our marae in Tai Tokerau, when those links were very, very strong and very, very fresh. Papa hoanga—sandstone—and kokowai. These are elements of the earth; these are elements of our identity. In Te Tai Tokerau, we have one such clay called pukepoto, and it's the only clay that was used by my grandmother's generation to create the blue effect of mixing clay with the preparation of various plant materials. Not surprisingly, Matua Shane Jones was wildly distracted on other things. However, I do remember that. So e te whānau, tēnā koutou katoa. This is when I say it is complicated, because it represents a great deal of responsibility to monitor and to exercise oversight in terms of the multiple pieces of land and the statutory representations that are reflected in this Act, which you have to share with a number of your neighbours. So for those of us who have a longstanding involvement in the Māori political economy, we know that, number one, it's not easy, and, number two, if it's not carried out in an efficient manner, it can be very, very burdensome. However, today, in this first reading, as the bill travels through the huarahi of your legislature, I stand on behalf of New Zealand First, and I must, before I sit, acknowledge the earlier Ministers. We have Minister Goldsmith here and Minister Little but also, obviously, Minister Finlayson dedicated a great deal of his time as well, not only to this settlement but a host of others. So Godspeed, and we will see you at the other end of this parliamentary journey. Tēnā koutou katoa. TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] As we stand here today, as a mokopuna of Ngā Rauru, Ngāti Maniapoto, and Mōkai Pātea, I mihi to the whānau of Tamahaki, Tamakana, and Uenuku. To the kuia, kaumātua, the dedicated negotiators, hapū leaders, and the vibrant whānau who have tirelessly worked and walked the long path that has led us to this point of historical acknowledgement and settlement, tēnā koutou katoa. The journey here has not been without its immense challenges and profound mamae that has been endured by a people across generations. This pain, this mamae is acknowledged here today with the understanding that no settlement can truly compensate for the losses and suffering, however, it is with hope and a forward-looking spirit that we see this settlement as a pivotal step towards justice, healing, and prosperity of our people. Delving into the heart of our history, the story of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua is one of resilience, of unity, and of unbreakable connection to the whenua. From the mid-19th century, our ancestors lived, farmed, and hunted across the central North Island, their lives intrinsically woven into the history of Tamahaki, Tamakana, and Uenuku ki Manganui-o-te-Ao through whakapapa. When the Treaty of Waitangi was signed in 1840, there was an expectation of fair treatment, justice, and honour, yet what followed was a series of events that would see Te Korowai o Wainuiārua and its people face confiscation, conflict, and a disregard for the agreements that were supposed to be protected to them. From the Crown's strategic land grabs without consultation in the 1870s to the confiscation of the North Island main trunk railway without consent in the 1880s, and the resulting land losses for public works throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the impacts have been profound and enduring. The present struggle is a continuation of its legacy. The Crown's negotiation tactics and politics are working to divide and rule, sidelining and ignoring the voices of our whānau and hapū. The Treaty settlement process, ironically, has become a breach of the Treaty itself, a symbol of colonisation's enduring legacy of shifting goal posts until we forget who our opposition is. It is our continued commitment to you, our whānau, our people that Te Pāti Māori will unequivocally continue to fight for Te Tiriti o Waitangi in this House. As the only Tiriti-centric party, we will continue to hold this Government to account. Whilst the Tiriti settlement is just another clip of the ticket, their true commitment to your settlement, the settlement of the Taranaki maunga, and settlements to come will only be judged through their actions. Te Pāti Māori asserts that the justice can only come through the assertion of tino rangatiratanga through self-management, self-determination, and self-governance over all our domains. It is time to transcend the Treaty settlement process, to restore mana to tangata whenua and establish our own processes for retaining our lands and rights. Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a covenant to be honoured, not settled. Our ancestors signed Te Tiriti before any breaches occurred, under the understanding of a partnership and shared sovereignty that is yet to be realised. We will not settle for mere fractions offered in settlements. We will continue to be the unapologetic voice for a Tiriti-centric Aotearoa, for an Aotearoa hou, striving for a future where our mokopuna can experience the true partnership envisaged by our tūpuna. Today is about acknowledging the path we have walked, the challenges faced, and the steps towards justice and self-determination. It is about celebrating the resilience, strength, and the beginning of a new chapter in the proud story of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, Tamahaki, Tamakana, and Uenuku. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Kia ora. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] It's my pleasure to rise and make a contribution to this debate today, and to welcome our guests from up north, the principal iwi, today. Uenuku, Tamakana, Tamahaki, welcome to you, and it's our pleasure to be here with you today. I'd also like to acknowledge your tūpuna, who cultivated and hunted on the land that this settlement is recognising. I'd also like to acknowledge the rangatira and the son who signed the Treaty—and I might get this wrong—Te Rangiwhakarurua, and the expectation that they had for fair treatment, equal citizenship, justice and mana, and it's that expectation that the Crown has failed to live up to. I'd like to also acknowledge Ministers Andrew Little and the Hon Paul Goldsmith, and also the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe, who whakapapa to your rohe. My question might be: what iwi does he not whakapapa to in Aotearoa? This is a historic occasion. This is the 101st settlement that comes before this House. It is also a historic occasion for the iwi of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua because this has been some years in the making. This bill gives effect to the deed that acknowledges the actions of the Crown and that those actions breached the Treaty leading to land confiscation, the iwi becoming nearly landless—virtually landless—the mana that was taken away, and also the mamae that was caused, as well. The provisions of this deed gives effect to an amount of redress, financial redress, and I'd like to acknowledge it is a pittance for the amount of land that was confiscated. The land in question is over 600,000 hectares—and that is the same, actually, with all settlements that have gone before this House in that no settlement can really address the actions that the Crown has made. But, in the spirit of bipartisanship, as my colleagues on the other side have said, the hope is that this goes some way to acknowledging the past but also enabling your iwi to focus on the future. It is that chance to heal and focus on the future that I look forward to hearing as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, which is where this bill goes after today. I really look forward to the submissions. I'd like to encourage members here today and members online to make a submission on that bill because I look forward to hearing some of the historical accounts but also to hearing the aspiration, and I'd like to extend an invitation. If you would like us to come up to your rohe and hear those submissions in person—the select committee, that is—we'd welcome that, but we will leave that in your court. But on behalf of the committee, we extend that invitation to visit your rohe. So it is my pleasure to stand on behalf of National and on behalf of the select committee for Māori affairs to commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Well, it's lovely to have the whānau here. I was listening to Shane Jones earlier, talking about his experiences. It's lovely when we have Minister Jones on song with us. It's really been that sort of week—we're all on song together. Unity and love has come through the House. Jenny Marcroft: "Kumbaya". Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yeah, "Kumbaya", as Jenny Marcroft said. It's been quite a week, so it's lovely to have whānau here to tautoko this kaupapa. These are the types of kaupapa we do come to whakakotahi for—unite for. Last night, we had a special event here that a lot of our whānau will not have seen, where our Pasifika people came in and the House united—well, most of the House—which is how it should be. You wouldn't know when we go through these Treaty bills that there has been angst over kaupapa Māori over the last few months, and I always look at it and I think it's a bit of a shame because I do see the human element from all members on these sorts of kaupapa. These sorts of kaupapa touch people—they really touch people. They touch something in people—the injustice of what happened to our people. As myself and the Hon Peeni Henare know, and we know this process as well as anyone up there, you went into this process 35 years ago—35 years ago our people went into this process. It's a long time to wait for justice—a long time to wait for justice. So when you come here and the whānau honour us with their presence, we should remember the type of struggle that has gone on with our kaumātua and our kuia before us. I was listening to Minister Jones talking about the minerals stuff. I thought that that was really lovely, what he was talking about. He didn't talk about his minerals strategy, though, but he talked about— DEPUTY SPEAKER: That didn't relate to the bill. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, that's true, Madam Speaker—that's true. He didn't talk about his minerals strategy, but he did a lovely analogy in terms of the tikanga of the minerals and the reo—as we all know, he's an expert, and he's very clever in that area. But the bill acknowledges so much of what we've gone through. You know, I was looking through it and just acknowledging what happened with our reo—with our language. In just simple paragraphs like "The Crown acknowledges that in the second half of the twentieth century, Te Korowai o Wainuiārua children who attended Crown-established schools were punished for speaking their own language and this has contributed to the decline of te reo Māori among the iwi of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua."—and just to have that in a settlement means so much, doesn't it? It means so much, because sometimes when our people talk about our parents or our tīpuna being beaten for speaking Māori, they are challenged over that. They are challenged over that. Peeni Henare knows it, as does Shane Jones. These two are both experts in our language—Tama Potaka, also—and they know of the history and the background. We love to see that in settlements like this, and I was reading and I thought that that's not in all settlements. But it's an acknowledgment, and what that does to an iwi is that it crushes an iwi, because all of a sudden, you only have so few people who are Māori language - proficient. So this is only the first reading, and we'll tautoko this all the way through. But I just want to say to whānau who have come here today that it's just wonderful to participate in the process. I mihi to our Māori Affairs Committee chair, Dan Bidois, over there, and the former Ministers Andrew Little and Chris Finlayson, and Minister Goldsmith for us always being able to find a way through things, let common sense prevail, and let our people have the opportunity to develop. So just a short call today to tautoko our iwi and tautoko the kaupapa today. Nō reira, tēnā anō tatou katoa. SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei): Tēnā koutou katoa. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. I must start by acknowledging the descendants of Tamahaki, Tamakana, and Uenuku who have come to Parliament today for the first reading of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill. I also acknowledge the hurt, the sacrifice, and the sheer hard work they endured over many years to get here. I pay tribute to the kuia and kaumātua who are no longer here, who also fought hard, and who were among the first to submit claims to the Waitangi Tribunal in the 1980s. They have waited a long time. When the Uenuku Charitable Trust representing Te Korowai o Wainuiārua and the Crown signed an agreement in principle in July 2023, trust chair Aiden Gilbert, who is here today, recounted a story of old. It was the story of four symbolic gifts given to the Prime Minister Michael Joseph Savage at Parliament in 1936 by Tahupōtiki Wiremu Rātana, the founder of the Rātana Church. Rātana first presented Savage with three huia feathers representing Māori. They were protruding from a potato, which symbolised the land taken from Māori, leaving them unable to grow their staple crop. A pounamu hei tiki tiki represented Māori mana and prestige, which had also been lost. A pin with a star and crescent moon was the symbol of the Rātana Church. His final gift: a broken gold watch, handed down to Rātana by his grandfather. It represented the broken promises of the Crown. It was time to give back their land. It is said that these items had such a profound impact on Savage that when he died in 1940, they were buried with him. It is fitting that Te Korowai o Wainuiārua's agreement in principle was signed at the Rautahi marae, watched over by the Rātana Church on the hill. The people of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua have waited a long time. Nau mai haere mai ki te Whare Pāremata. Now is their time. This settlement is a significant milestone for my people of Uenuku, and I'm especially proud to speak to the first reading of this bill as the member of Parliament for the mighty Rangitīkei. Together, their story is a painful story of conflict and loss, grievances, and injustices. It is a history of large-scale loss of ancestral land, land taken to facilitate the logging of the great Waimarino forest, and facilitate the construction of the main trunk line which helped to build the colony's towns and cities, which helped to build New Zealand. The bill acknowledges breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which literally left hapū and iwi landless, and caused significant and ongoing socio-economic harm. The symbolic division of the Whanganui River at Pipiriki, with Whanganui to the south, and the three hapū of Uenuku, Tamahaki, and Tamakana to the north; those to the north were labelled "hauhau", or rebels, by the Crown. They endured the stigma of the "hauhau" label, and they endured the subsequent painful divisions between the iwi and the iwi of Whanganui. I acknowledge this bill has been a long time coming, and it hasn't been without its challenges. Although Tamahaki, Tamakana, and Uenuku are distinct tribal entities, they are tightly connected through whakapapa, and a shared history. In negotiations, they demonstrated manaakitanga as a people, and as iwi. In the words of Raetihi's Eliza Piu, "At the end of the day, Suze, we're all related. We're all whānau, and that's the most important consideration". I would also like to mention something else I heard during the course of my conversations with people involved in this protracted and complicated process. Treaty settlements are not just a gravy train for Māori. They honour redress for Māori, but they also provide huge economic, social, and wellbeing benefits for all, across communities, and, in this case, across the mighty Rangitīkei. They are a springboard for hope, progress, and prosperity. Today begins the next chapter of acknowledging the people of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua and their mana whenua, of acknowledging my people of Uenuku, the God of the rainbow. I tautoko them all. I support them, and I'm incredibly proud to speak for them on this momentous day. Together, they can finally see the future. Today is a rainbow day. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā iwi, rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. I just want to acknowledge the presence of those connected with Te Korowai o Wainuiārua and their mahi and their work over many years to get to this moment today, to those both present and those who have passed, to enable this bill to come before the House, the 101st Māori settlement bill to be put before this House. As has been already acknowledged, things change quickly down here sometimes, and we acknowledge you making yourselves available to be here on such a significant day, and really just want to acknowledge and honour that. I also would like to acknowledge and honour the work of the Ministers—Minister Little, Minister Goldsmith—in supporting the Crown's work to enable us to be here at this point today. I also would like to just acknowledge my connection to Whanganui and the shared awa that we live, learn, and grow beside. The purpose of this bill is to seek to give effect to certain matters contained in the deed of settlement signed on 29 July 2023 by the Crown and by Te Korowai o Wainuiārua. When it was signed in July last year, Minister Little acknowledged that you were amongst the first to submit claims to the Waitangi Tribunal 35 years ago, in the 1980s, and you have waited a long time for this day—in my world, literally a lifetime. I can only imagine the pain and the heartache that you have gone through over the last three decades to get to this point that we're here today. It's an absolute privilege to rise and speak last on this bill. The significance of the journey of this legislation through this House—through our House, through your House—is not lost on me this afternoon. Indeed, this evening I will drive home to Whanganui and I will pass through Whangaehu, where your tūpuna signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi so many years ago. At the pōwhiri earlier today, as we hongi-ed, one of your kaumatua said to me, "A familiar face." As we kōrero-ed afterwards, I discovered that his mokopuna plays T-ball and goes to school with my son. I share this to acknowledge our shared connections to the Whanganui awa, and because much of what has been said today is about looking to the future for Te Korowai o Wainuiārua and, I hope, looking forward to the future for all the people connected to the Whanganui awa. In going through the bill, I noted several of the properties being returned to iwi for your governance and oversight include the Tangahoe scenic reserve and Ramanui Scenic Reserve, both located in the rohe I have the privilege of representing as the member of Parliament for Whanganui. I hope to have the opportunity to visit these scenic reserves with you at some stage in the future. It is a credit to mana whenua that public access, that recreational use, reserve status, and existing rights will be maintained through this bill, and I just want to honour and acknowledge you for that. The significance of what this means for Te Korowai o Wainuiārua I am sure I cannot express in words for you this afternoon in this House. My hope, though, is that the little mahi—compared to what you have done and gone through—that this House undertakes to ensure the passage of this bill will create a brighter future for you and for your mokopuna and that it creates a brighter and better foundation for our next generation to grow together, for your children—like your Louie and my Angus. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now, we've just got one more technicality to work through. The question is, That Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee. Motion agreed to. Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I've been informed that there has been permission today for guitars to be taken into the gallery and for a waiata after this reading. Welcome. Waiata—"He Hōnore" DEPUTY SPEAKER: Kia ora. NGĀTI PAOA CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILL Second Reading Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I present a legislative statement on the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill. DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I move, That the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] This bill gives effect to the deed of settlement signed by Ngāti Paoa and the Crown in March 2021. The deed of settlement settles all the remaining historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of Ngāti Paoa. Ngāti Paoa are an iwi with an interest that includes Mahurangi, Tāmaki-makau--rau, the Hauraki Plains, gulf islands, and parts of Waikato. The historical claims of Ngāti Paoa relate to the Crown's actions that led to the loss of life and devastation caused by hostilities, as well as by the operation and impact of the native land laws and continued Crown purchasing that left Ngāti Paoa virtually landless. The bill comprises five parts, including cultural and commercial redress and the Crown's apology. I look forward to describing the bill in greater detail at its third reading. We remember and pay tribute to the tūpuna and many generations of Ngāti Paoa who suffered from historical Crown acts and omissions and who are not here today to see those grievances redressed through this settlement. I acknowledge the many members of Ngāti Paoa who have passed away over the course of the settlement and for whom justice did not come soon enough. I also wish to acknowledge the Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust as the post-settlement governance entity for Ngāti Paoa who have been entrusted with taking this settlement forward on behalf of the iwi to realise their aspirations for the future. On the Crown's side, I acknowledge the chief Crown negotiators, Michael Dreaver and the Hon Rick Barker. I also acknowledge my predecessors, the Hon Chris Finlayson and the Hon Andrew Little for their significant contributions to this Treaty settlement. I thank the Crown agencies and local authorities for your support in progressing this settlement. The bill was referred to the Māori Affairs Committee on 21 June 2023. The committee received and considered 351 submissions on the bill and heard oral evidence from 25 submitters. I'd like to extend my thanks to the committee for their work in the consideration of the bill. The committee recommended two main amendments to the bill as a result of submissions that relate to two Waitangi Tribunal claims, Wai 365 and Wai 968. Wai 365 is a historical claim currently listed to be settled in full through the bill. On review, the claim is listed in the Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki deed of settlement as a claim to be settled in part. Accordingly, the committee recommended the bill be amended so Wai 365 is only settled in part in the bill. A named Wai 968 claimant submitted in support of the bill but requested Wai 968 be removed and instead settled in full by the Ngāti Tamaterā settlement. After consultation with affected parties, it was agreed that Wai 968 should be removed from this bill and be appropriately settled in full by the Ngāti Tamaterā Treaty settlement. The committee also recommended some minor and technical amendments to ensure consistency with other Hauraki iwi settlement bills. A large number of submissions were received on the transfer of the farm on Waiheke Island from the Ngāti Paoa Trust Board to the Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust. This has been a point of contention amongst Ngāti Paoa descendants, resulting in various legal challenges and an attempt at mediation between the two entities. The committee does not propose any changes to the bill in relation to the Waiheke farm. The committee acknowledged the different strongly held views on this issue, but concluded that, on balance, the interests of Ngāti Paoa descendants are best served by the farm being vested in the post-settlement governance entity, the Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust, alongside the other assets listed in this bill. The committee strongly encouraged the trustees involved to find a path forward together for the benefit of the people they are elected to serve. I support the committee's view on this. I'm satisfied with the committee's recommendation as they will ensure the redress addressed in the Ngāti Paoa deed of settlement can be properly implemented through the bill. This reading today is another important step in the settlement process before the third reading that will result in the full and final settlement of Ngāti Paoa's historical Treaty of Waitangi claims. I look forward to hosting Ngāti Paoa here for that occasion and to honour the steps the Crown has agreed to take towards reconciliation. I commend the bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ko te pātai kia whakaaetia te mōtini. [The question is that the motion be agreed to.] Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Reo Māori, Madam Speaker. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity, and I acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for his contributions, and I think, too, a good précis about some of the challenges that have come through this particular settlement. It's well known that in Tāmaki-makau-rau and right across Tāmaki-makau-rau and further boundaries that extend to the limits of Tāmaki-makau-rau, settlements are particularly difficult because of overlapping interests. The fact that many tribes from right across the country either found home there after colonial settlement or called it home before colonial settlement is the matter for debate, the matter for whakapapa, and the matter for many discussions held between iwi, which is complicated even further when iwi present their case to the Crown in what can only be regarded, and has been explained many times in this House, as a very tricky Treaty settlement process. So I want to acknowledge Ngāti Paoa. I want to, like the Minister, acknowledge those officers and those of the iwi who sat down and worked very hard—over recent years, in particular—to make sure that this settlement has arrived to the space where it is now. Quite often, you receive a large number of submissions on settlements. This particular settlement received significantly more than one might expect from other settlements—for example, this settlement that we just had with our whānau from Te Korowai o Wainuiārua. I'm sure there will be a number of—what do you call it?— representations made to the Māori Affairs Committee. But this one in particular was a challenge and the Minister's already described what some of those challenges were. I'm glad that the committee made the recommendations that they did, and Ngāti Paoa will continue to make sure that the Crown holds up their end of the bargain, and especially considering the work that Ngāti Paoa did to ensure that this particular bill could continue to progress. Madam Speaker, I started in this House alongside yourself in 2014, and one of my first speeches in the House was on the first reading of the original agreement that was entered into by the Hon Christopher Finlayson, and it was contentious at the time. If I recall correctly—call it youthful naivety—I was stood down, or sat down, in that particular contribution, which is quite rare on these occasions when we consider Treaty bills. But such was the difficulty of the Ngāti Paoa settlement bill. So I'm really proud, actually, as the former member of Tāmaki Makaurau who sat and watched the progression of this bill to where we are today. There is still more work to be done, if I consider the overlapping interests across Tāmaki-makau-rau. The bill sets out some of the mechanisms that Ngāti Paoa and other iwi can use to engage with local authority and central governmental authority. One of the challenging things that I know iwi, in particular, engage in, but can often be usurped through courts, is a more tikanga-based approach to the way that iwi work with each other in Tāmaki-makau-rau. When we talk about overlapping interests, it isn't the first desire of iwi to go to the court to settle it. The first desire of iwi is to sit down as relatives, as neighbours, acknowledging a shared whakapapa and a shared history—to be able to avoid the expensive costs of court and the long-winded nature of the court process. So I'd like to still encourage that, as Tāmaki-makau-rau looks to settle others that are still in the region of Tāmaki-makau-rau. The bill here describes well the area that Ngāti Paoa call home. It's as far north as Mahurangi or Māhuhu-ki-te-rangi—for those of you who don't know, further north of Auckland—of course, extending out into the Hauraki, and, in particular, into the home of Ngāti Paoa at Maungarei and at Mokoia, which I think is really important. And why I mention that—and my whanaunga up here will know the story well; of course, as a descendant of Ngāpuhi—is that Ngāpuhi played its role as it came into Tāmaki-makau-rau in some of the tricky dynamics that exist today between the iwi, whether it's the Waikato to the southern boundary or Ngāti Whātua to the northern boundary, and the role that Ngāpuhi played. And I want to acknowledge, in particular, what took place on Mokoia—and my tuākana knows the story well about Ngāpuhi's role at that particular battle. So I know this is the second reading and I support the words of Minister Goldsmith when we say we want to continue to push this particular kaupapa along. But I thought it an opportunity—at least from the Labour Party—through a 10-minute call, to be able to just extend our contribution a little bit more, with the hope to fulfil the expectations of Ngāti Paoa that this House deliberates on these particular pieces of legislation with a very keen eye to getting it right. So, on that note, I won't carry on any further other than to say [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] I stand on behalf of te Rōpū Kākāriki and share sentiments of support for this, the second reading of the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill. As I shared in my initial mihi, as an uri of Ngāpuhi, as an uri of Ngātiwai, Ngāti Rongo, and Mahurangi, and also as an uri of Ngaati Whanaunga, I stand in tautoko. I want to reflect on loss and the losses for Ngāti Paoa over many generations, and think about Tāmaki-makau-rau and the thoroughfare. I shared that Ngāti Paoa are a seafaring people. They were an [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] and they were rich with abundance in Tāmaki and across their tribal rohe. In 1820, a missionary by the name of Butler visited Mokoia on the Tāmaki inlet—and I quote—"Their houses are superior to most I've met with. Their stores were full of potatoes containing [many] thousands of baskets and they had [many] very fine hogs." Now, Butler, who must have climbed Maungarei—Mount Wellington—shared that he saw 20 villages in the valley below, and with a single glance beheld the greatest portion of cultivated land he had ever met in one place in New Zealand. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] and that's where the loss is, because, as we have heard from the Waitangi Tribunal, the tribes of Hauraki were left virtually landless due to the acts and omissions of the Crown, retaining only 2.6 percent of their tribal estate in 2024. The hara sits on te Kāwanatanga, who have made the people of Ngāti Paoa mai Matakana ki Matakana—virtually landless—within their own tribal territories. The economic loss, the opportunity for Ngāti Paoa to maintain what they had at Mokoia across their tribal territories, across the islands was lost because the Crown failed to protect them, to retain sufficient lands for their people to thrive and grow. The Crown failed to protect them from the rapid alienation, Crown purchases, Native Land Court, public works takings—you name it, Ngāti Paoa suffered it. These are what this settlement is trying to provide, a tiny iti pīhi—a small piece—of redress for the people of Ngāti Paoa. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] So I stand here with a heavy heart as I support this legislation but tangi for the people of Hauraki, for today I wear my Hauraki hat. I stand in my Haurakitanga and mihi to the people of Ngāti Paoa. The settlement package of $23.5 million— [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] —and 12 sites vested in the iwi—is that enough? I question it: 184 years since the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and they get $23.5 million and 12 properties vested in the iwi. Is that enough? Is this a process that is fair? No—kāhore—it is not. As we have heard, this is about building a pathway to thrive and look to build an asset base, but it's 184 years - plus of loss for te iwi o Ngāti Paoa, and so I tangi for that. Co-governance, co-management of sites—that should be a right, and these sites should be in the name of Ngāti Paoa. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] May I mihi to Ngāti Paoa in the good faith that Ngāti Paoa iwi has stood in the claims process, because, for my whakapapa, we have overlapping interests and we have had disputes, but the Hauraki Collective aside, and that settlement, this is about Ngāti Paoa and Ngāti Paoa's leadership that came to the tēpu. May I reflect, on behalf of my iwi of Ngātiwai, and the overlapping interests and the way with which the hui, through tikanga Māori, we came together as peoples, recognising our whakapapa connections but also our differences, as we are different, but we are whanaunga. Through those meetings on our marae in Ngātiwai and then both in the tribal territories of Ngāti Paoa, agreements were made, and those agreements were based on a tikanga-led process. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Leave the Crown out and let us settle it as whanaunga. I celebrate the way with which Ngāti Paoa leadership came into those meetings. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] I'm just an uri. I was watching on the outside. I'm a kaitautoko. But as kaumātua leadership came to bring our people together, agreements were made, so I mihi to the leadership of Ngāti Paoa. Three years ago, since the signing of the agreement at Wharekawa Marae in Kaiaua, I remember when my elders of Ngātiwai went to support Ngāti Paoa on that very special day. So these settlements are not about justice for Ngāti Paoa, because the Crown settlement policy does not provide the pathway for full reparations for loss of Ngāti Paoa iwi and te Iwi Māori, but what it does provide is an opportunity for a commencement of growth, knowing the journey of Ngāti Paoa and the tribes of Hauraki, and acknowledging Ngāti Hei, who came through this House earlier this week, and the support of the iwi, [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Through the claims and the negotiations process, as a mokopuna of Hauraki, on behalf of te Rōpū Kākāriki, we support the second reading of the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa. LAURA TRASK (ACT): Kia ora. I'd like to extend a mihi from the ACT Party to the iwi, the hapū, the whānau who join us today and the ancestors you have brought with you. We're glad to be able to support this historic Treaty settlement. The settlement contains acknowledgment of Crown breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Treaty of Waitangi, and its principles, including the confiscation of land by the Crown, the impact and operation of native lands and laws, and Crown purchasing that left Ngāti Paoa virtually landless and undermined their economic, social, and cultural development. In October 1863, HMS Miranda shelled the Ngāti Paoa village Pūkorokoro. Later that year in December, the Crown militia made a surprise attack on a group of 40 to 50 Māori, which included Ngāti Paoa ancestors. Ngāti Paoa has constantly been forced to choose sides and face huge amounts of land confiscation and alienation. Their lands were confiscated, their culture suppressed, and their economic prospects stifled. No land had been returned to Ngāti Paoa. Today, we get to hear the second reading of this historic bill and celebrate the return of 12 sites of cultural significance and financial and commercial redress valued at $23.5 million, along with a wide range of other commercial, cultural, and relationship items. We hope that this redress allows the nearly 5,000 members of Ngāti Paoa to come together, support each other, and heal from the harm acknowledged in this bill today. Let us honour the iwi, their resilience, their stories, and their aspirations. May this settlement pave the way for healing, unity, and a brighter future. Let us remember that reconciliation is not a single act but an ongoing commitment. We are glad to see this bill moved through the House. We understand it has taken far too long for this reconciliation to take place, and ACT is proud to support this bill. Kia ora. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): [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 and a humbling experience to ever be involved in this House and speaking to claims settlement bills, and this is no different—the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill. New Zealand First stands in support of the bill and in support of Ngāti Paoa. I began my mihi mentioning Hauāuru Rawiri and also Morehu Wilson. Morehu was the historian for Ngāti Paoa who passed away two years ago, and I feel, as this is the first opportunity I have spoken to this bill, to acknowledge him and also the fact that he was a St Stephen's old boy. So my colleague the Hon Shane Jones, also a St Stephen's old boy, wanted me to acknowledge that as well. Also must acknowledge all of the people who turned out for Paoa over the many, many, many years—decades, in fact—over a very difficult period over those years. Decades trying to get back on your feet. This is a milestone, another step forward towards being back on your feet. But now it's really important so that the young people of Paoa know who they are, and this is a step in terms of their history moving forward. The aspiration that the next generations—that the young people—will be healthy and will be wealthy so that they have full-spectrum health and wealth as it will come and flow once the settlement process is concluded. I'd like to acknowledge the Ministers, and there have been three of them who have shepherded this bill. It started off with the Hon Christopher Finlayson, then through to the Hon Andrew Little, and now sits with the Minister the Hon Paul Goldsmith. So, hopefully, we can bring this in for a landing very soon—you've waited far too long. I'd just like to mention the Hon Peeni Henare, who mentioned the overlapping interests in Tāmaki-makau-rau. That is something that all of us who live in Auckland, in Tāmaki, are aware of. Through research and learning more about Ngāti Paoa, I was able to see more of that picture in in terms of how difficult it has been to get to this stage in the House today. Acknowledging the Māori Affairs Committee and the work that you have done considering submissions from 351 interested groups and individuals, and you heard oral evidence from 25 submitters. In a little moment, I will come and swing around to a couple of those submissions which I feel are really important and so I want to acknowledge them in the House shortly. Ngāti Paoa are mana moana people. I have been told that, I have seen it, I believe it, and I really want the House to understand what that means. I can give you an example today of what mana moana people mean. We have this invasive seaweed called Caulerpa which is inhabiting and strangling the seabed in the Hauraki Gulf. Ngāti Paoa took it upon themselves to reach out. They found an incredibly unique way to try and smother that nasty little critter—that nasty pest—and so, with the help of Bremworth, have rolled out pure wool mats on to the seabed to suffocate. That is really something which could end up being a lifesaver for the Hauraki Gulf, so I'd like to applaud all of your people who've been involved in that. That, in fact, could be something that we could take internationally, and you have been part of that. That is something absolutely worthwhile, looking forward. Mahurangi is one of your areas. I'm currently a resident and have been for the last 20-odd years in Matakana. Because I grew up in Rotorua, whenever I say I'm from Matakana, they go, "Oh, Matakana Island." No! Matakana ki Matakana. So it's wonderful to also have that connection with you. When I look at some of the detail of the bill—and I won't really go into too much because a lot of that has been traversed already—what I would like to speak to is: I've worked in a council in Auckland, and during my time there the Ngāti Paoa settlement was in select committee and the council was obviously involved with some of this land which has been returned to Ngāti Paoa. So they've made some submissions which I'd like to acknowledge—the council—and I hope that they have been a willing partner in sharing in the process of acknowledging the grievances and then the redress that is part of this Treaty settlement. So well done, Auckland Council. I did really enjoy my time that I was in the Auckland Council, working with John Hutton and also with the Māori team which was led by Herewini Te Koha. They were a great team and also I got to know fairly well one of the councillors, Corinne Leone—one of Ngāti Paoa's rising stars—and she also submitted on the bill. She wanted to tautoko the leadership of Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust, and that basically was in their hands to speak on behalf of all of the people to support the bill for the iwi. I have a very dear friend from broadcasting who's also Ngāti Paoa: Mihingarangi Forbes, who I absolutely respect and admire. Hon Member: Good lady. JENNY MARCROFT: She is a very good lady, absolutely. She wanted me to include, as part of my submission, something which she has had a lot of mamae—it's been part of her journey—and that is around the reo. Mihi's great-grandmother, Paerau Anaru Te Whetū, died at age 48 from heart disease caused by childhood rheumatic fever. Her daughter, who's Mihi's grandmother, Nora Forbes, died at 58. Now, Nora was the last native speaker of te reo in Mihi's line. Her son, Mihi's father, is bereft of his language. None of his eight siblings speak their native tongue. Of the 20 grandchildren, just two of them speak te reo Māori, and Mihi is one of them. Te reo Māori has enriched her life; it has given her access to her whakapapa, to Ngāti Paoa history; and with te reo Māori, she's able to stand proudly in Tāmaki-makau-rau as tangata whenua. So I mihi to you: ngā mihi. Now, the trauma of loss of language is something that I know from my whānau, and this is part of the journey of healing which comes through these Treaty settlement bills. We can put a stake in the ground. We can say, "That was then; this is now.", and we can move forward collectively, as a people, together. Finally, in concluding part of Mihingarangi's story, her uncles now sit in the second row while the next generation holds the paepae. The beautiful voices of her aunties are not heard at the gate. They know how to host, obviously—they were raised to welcome, but not on the marae. Their karanga is silent. So I am hopeful that it is Mihingarangi's voice that fills that space and of her children that will come after her. So it's time Paoa begins to heal; to revive Ngāti Paoa reo, their customs, tikanga specific to their hapū. In conclusion, in the House today, as Parliament puts its politics to the side—which is quite a relief from time to time—once again we're able to be a living part of an example to the world of how to resolve historical grievances. So with the second reading of the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill, today marks that next step forward towards the aspirations of the people of Paoa: to reaffirm the prosperity and holistic well-being of their people. It's an honour—it is a privilege—to bring the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill on its second reading in for a landing. I commend this bill to the House. No reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Just before I call the next speaker, I understand for purposes of broadcasting in the House that the Speaker always has the microphone and I didn't want to interrupt the last speaker. But when we have specific guests in the gallery, I'm not sure that members understand how much their voices carry around the House—certainly comes up here. So could we just keep conversations to a bit of a minimum around the House, because I'm sure it just isn't helpful in the House. Thank you. This is a split call, and I now call Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke. HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. Tuatahi ake e tuku ana i te reo karere ki a koe, Jenny, i tō kōrero reo reka i ngā karere o Mihingārangi me tōna whānau. He kōrero huhua i pā ki te ngākau, otirā he hononga tōku ki tāna tamāhine, arā ki a Te Ahipourewa. Nō reira ka nui te mihi. Hoturoa, Hotuope, Hotumatapū, Hotu ārahi i te waka i Pikopiko-i-whiti-nui, kia mātakitaki ki uta, kia mātaratara ki tai. Ngātoroirangi kei te ihu o te waka. Tēnā te tira ka tū, ko te tira nā Tūrora, nā Rereahi, nā Korehe, nā Tūrongo. Tēnā te tira, te tira oti ana, tira ka tū. Tēnā toetoe nā Haka, nā Hauā. Tira ka tū, tēnā oti. Tenā te tira ka tū, ko te tira nā Tūrora, nā Rereahi, nā Korehe, nā Tūrongo. Tēnā te tira, te tira oti ana, tira ka tū. Tēnā toetoe nā Haka, nā Hauā. Tira ka tū, tēnā oti. Ko Kohukohunui te maunga, ko Piako te awa, ko Tīkapa te moana, ko Te Haupā te tangata. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā kārangarangatanga maha, nei noa te reo whakamiha ki a koutou kua karapinepine mai i roto i tēnei Whare i te rangi nei. Inā te hōnore nui mōku ki te tū ki te waha i ngā kōrero mā Te Pāti Māori mō tēnei pire. Ngāti Paoa ki uta, Ngāti Paoa ki tai, Ngāti Paoa ki tua o te pae o Matariki. Ko ngā uri o ngā waka o Tainui waka, o Te Arawa. Kei aku whanaunga o Paoa, ko te uri o Ngāti Mahuta tēnei, Ngāti Mahuta Takaroa e mihi atu ki a koutou. Kei aku parepare, Pare Hauraki, Pare Waikato, ko Kotuiti te waka i whakakotahi i a tātou. Anei te mema o Hauraki-Waikato, te kaitiaki e tautoko ana i tā koutou haere ki runga i te moana tītoki o ngā whakatau whenua. [Thank you, Madam Speaker, indeed greetings to us all in this House. First, I'd like to offer a few words to you, Jenny, for the beautiful words in the messages of Mihingarangi and her family. There were many statements that touched the heart, and indeed I have a connection to her daughter, to Te Ahipourewa. So, many thanks. Hoturoa, Hotuope, Hotumatapū, Hotu that lead the vessel from Pikopiko-i-whiti-nui, to be seen from shore, and to feel the cold at sea. Ngātoroirangi stood at the prow of the canoe. That is the assembly that stands, the assembly affiliated to Tūrora, to Rereahi, to Korehe and to Tūrongo. That is the assembly that stands, the assembly that is complete, the assembly that stands. That is the dune grass of Haka and Hauā, the assembly that stands, that is complete. Kohukohunui is the ancestral mountain, Piako is the river, Tīkapa is the sea harbour, Te Haupā is the leader. To the authorities, the representatives, the relatives, and your diverse backgrounds, this is the voice of welcome to you who have gathered here inside this House today. It is a great honour for me to stand and open the speeches for The Māori Party about this bill. Ngāti Paoa inland, Ngāti Paoa at sea, Ngāti Paoa beyond the frontier of Matariki. The descendants of the waka of Tainui, of Te Arawa. To my relations of Paoa, here is a descendant of Ngāti Mahuta, Ngāti Mahuta Takaroa that greets you. To my defenders, on Hauraki the Coromandel Peninsula, in the Waikato basin, Kotuiti is the waka that unites us. Here stands the member for Hauraki-Waikato, the custodian that supports your journey on the ocean bordered by tītoki trees, the ocean of land settlement.] As a kaitiaki of Hauraki-Waikato, it is my absolute privilege to kōrero on the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill. I would also like to acknowledge the three previous settlements that have come through the House this week: Taranaki maunga, Ngāti Hei, and Te Korowai o Wainuiārua. Tēnā koutou Tīkapa moana, koutou e noho ana ki Tāhuna, ki Waitī. [Greetings to you, Tīkapa sea inlet, you who reside at Tāhuna and Waitī.] As I've said earlier in the week, I have absolutely been dreading when it would come time for me to speak to settlement claims. Why? Because it is one of the most heartbreaking and sensitive issues we face as mokopuna of raupatu. Being a descendant of raupatu doesn't mean just giving a five-minute speech; it is weaved and entrenched in our DNA. We sing about it. We cry about it. We haka about it. We are about it 24/7. I can just imagine the many tears, sweat, and blood it has taken for Ngāti Paoa to get to this point. I want to acknowledge how hard the Treaty settlement process can be. It is so exhausting, that people die to get settlements across the line. I understand how challenging and difficult the Treaty process can be. The Treaty process in itself is actually a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. When I mean I understand it, I truly mean I understand it. I have whakapapa to my grandfather, who, a long time ago, didn't support Treaty settlements, alongside our rangatira Eva Rickard—and then, on my mum's side of Ngāpuhi, had whānau like Haydn Solomon, who worked with the key negotiators in the settlement. So, in the words of our esteemed tohunga Pāpā Rereata Mākiha, I agree 100 percent with both sides. Now, that's even more so, because I'm Tainui, Waikato, and Ngāpuhi. However, in the wise words of Moana Jackson, treaties are not settled; they are honoured. Treaty settlements are not full and final; they are just the beginning for open doors for mokopuna like myself to come through. Te Tiriti is a document that is a foundation of a living, evolving relationship between tangata whenua and the Crown. Both parties of Te Tiriti must continually strive to meet those obligations it sets out and implements in the three articles, in everything we do. Te Tiriti settlements, they are just the beginning. They stand to honour the mamae, loss, and grievances. They are the stepping stones towards moving into an Aotearoa Hau for future generations. Nō reira kei aku whanaunga, kei Ngāti Paoa, tēnei te reo mihi o Ngāti Mahuta, o Ngāti Whāwhākia, Ngāti Mahuta Takaroa e mihi kau atu ana ki a koutou katoa. Tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. [And so, my relatives, Ngāti Paoa, this is the voice of greeting of Ngāti Mahuta, Ngāti Whāwhākia and Ngāti Mahuta Takaroa that acknowledges you all. Greetings to all of us in this House.] STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand to speak in support of the Ngāti Paoa settlement and to tautoko what has been said by members across the House. Here, there are so many parts you can read in these deeds that articulate the unrelenting winds and seas of bad that were done to Ngāti Paoa: the confiscations, the raupatu, the wars, the taking of land, the acquisition of land by hook or by crook. The land was lost, drained, stripped bare. Even the rivers changed course. Iwi members were killed during the Crown invasion of Waikato in 1863. Ngāti Paoa had interests in the vast swathes of land confiscated by the Crown in the following years. By 1865, the Crown introduced new laws creating individual title over iwi land. Most of the land was sold or taken under the Public Works Act by the end of the 20th century. The Crown drained and developed the Hauraki wetlands, altering the course of the Waihou and the Piako rivers. I have a particular reference to what happened in Hauraki, because it was up the Waihou River that Joseph Banks and James Cook took a longboat when they first arrived to these lands. Banks, being a botanist, took a particular interest in the magnificent trees that stood on the Hauraki Plains and the kahikatea—"ngā uruora", as Geoff Park describes it in his book—was a source of food and nourishment for the iwi on the plains, who managed the plains for access of food as well as for gardens and production of food. Those magnificent kahikatea trees were so straight and huge with their buttressed roots that for the men of the British navy, their eyes opened wide, because they saw an opportunity to refurnish that navy with timber for shipbuilding. It turned out the kahikatea was not good for shipbuilding—although kauri was, and other of the native trees—and most of that kahikatea forest was burnt. What was left was destroyed in the draining of the Hauraki Plains, and then what was still left was cut down and turned into butter boxes for our export dairy industry at the beginning of the 20th century, because kahikatea puts no aroma or taint into the butter. What little was left of those magnificent forests was logged indiscriminately up until, really, the 1960s and 1970s, and this is just one of the harms of the impact of a highly extractive colonial interest that destroyed a magnificent native environment and indigenous forests, with huge impacts on the ability of iwi to maintain their cultural practices—their means of self-sustenance and food production that were traditional. But iwi quickly were able to produce food by other means. Indeed, as it is noted, in 1841 in Tāmaki, it was Ngāti Paoa who provided the food to the settlers there, bringing Te Tiriti o Waitangi. So we stand here and we must acknowledge the loss and the harm done. We must acknowledge that it's the Crown that has done that harm that has wronged Ngāti Paoa, and here we make some small amends for that. But, really, as has been spoken by others in the House, the deeper challenge to us as a nation is to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi through ongoing relationship and justice. This is not a thing that has a full stop at the end of it. This is a thing that must go on if we are to have a viable, a meaningful, and a legitimate society in this land. That's what we stand here for today, and we commend this deed to the House. Kia ora. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): E te Māngai, Madam Speaker, it's a pleasure to rise to take a call in the second reading of the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill. I'd like to start out by acknowledging the officials from Te Arawhiti for your work. Thank you very much. Michael and Glenn, the negotiators; the Ministers, past and present; Mr Goldsmith, and Andrew Little. I'd like to acknowledge the hard-working Māori Affairs Committee, past and present, for their work in getting this bill to the second reading today. The Ngāti Paoa area of interest is quite expansive. It covers a vast area from the Kaimai Ranges to the Waikato, large parts of Auckland, up to Wellsford, Waiheke, and even parts of the Coromandel. And I might be biased, but perhaps the area of interest that is probably most good is the area of Northcote, which comes under that area—the mighty area of Northcote. But it is a vast area of land, and the purpose of this bill, which really has been canvassed by the House today, is to acknowledge the past through an apology, acknowledge the past wrongs from the Crown over 160 years ago, and to try to make amends so that this iwi can focus on the future. Now, acknowledging that this iwi has three competing or additional claims that they've got before the Waitangi Tribunal and they've got other interests that they're wanting, but this bill seeks to make amends and address some of those wrongs. A part of the select committee process—which we picked up as a 54th Parliament, but, actually, the 53rd Parliament was part of—the committee received 351 submissions and there were 25 oral submissions that were heard. There were a bunch of technical amendments to the bill, but two major changes which I wish to highlight for this House today. The first was with respect to claim Wai 968 and the recommendation from the select committee to remove the clause, to remove Wai 968 from the bill. The second area of change was with respect to moving Wai 365 from one clause of the bill to another, and this was to reflect the fact that Wai 365 is only partially settled by this bill before us today. The other issue I wish to talk about for the House, which I must say we received quite a lot of correspondence on, was with respect to the Waiheke Station Trust. Now there is a provision in this bill that transfers the assets that are in this trust to the new post-settlement governance entity. We received quite a lot of correspondence that this should not be done and that the assets of this trust should stay with the current Waiheke Station Trust. We received much correspondence from the Ngāti Paoa Trust Board to that effect, and essentially, we rejected their claim to do so under the grounds that—and I wish to remind the members who are coming in and hearing this online that the beneficiaries of the same trust, the Ngāti Paoa Trust Board, are the same descendants of Ngāti Paoa. So transferring the assets from one trust to another doesn't change, in fact, the people who benefit from that trust, which is descendants of Ngāti Paoa. Now, the iwi trust that was designated as a post-settlement governance entity was ratified in 2013 and the trust board didn't actually participate in this process. They did challenge this process in the courts, and that failed. So the members of the select committee were satisfied that the impact from transferring the assets from the Waiheke Station Trust to the new post-settlement governance entity will actually be beneficial for all those descendants of Ngāti Paoa. That is probably the biggest issue that I wanted to talk about today. Other areas that I wish to just remind the House of are the main provisions of the bill, which essentially vests 12 cultural heritage sites significant to Ngāti Paoa. There's also some commercial and financial redress, just roughly about $24 million. I'd like to remind members and this House that it is a small pittance that doesn't actually give justice to the confiscation and the mamae that has been impacted, but this amount, hopefully, can enable Ngāti Paoa to focus on the future. Who knows what that asset base can be 10 years from now, after this bill goes through and is signed into law? So that is with respect to the financial redress. There is an apology as part of the deed of settlement that is given effect to in the bill, and also a whole bunch of other—perhaps minor, in respect to what I've talked about—provisions of the bill. It is with pleasure to report that this bill was passed in select committee unanimously, reported back to the House, and it is my pleasure to commend this bill. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): As I said earlier, it's wonderful that we're all in unison and love at this particular time of the week—it's not often that everybody falls all over each other. I think it was set last night with our Pacific brothers and sisters who turned up; beautiful night last night when everybody—well, we were just about all in love last night, but the Nats, sadly, spoilt the party again, couldn't come to the party. That was sad, but these Treaty settlements, as I said, bring the best out in us and everybody seems to find their human side. I was listening to Jenny Marcroft talking about Mihingarangi and the reo, the Māori language journey. So much of that is recovered in these settlements and acknowledged in these settlements—really proud of Mihi and the work she's done through the years. But you find that often within different groups as they look at the trauma of the language, the loss of language, and you find only one or two of them are kaikōrero, or speakers. So that's why we've had our Māori language renaissance, revivals all around the country—so important. Ngāti Paoa's another example of that huge loss in terms of te reo Māori, but you will see now, as our rangatahi come through—and they come through and we see them here in the House as they've journeyed through—how important the reo is. I just want to mihi to Mihi, not just for her language but for her advocacy, and I played a little bit of a role with her, facilitating a few things with Ngāti Paoa over the last couple of years. These journeys are always tough. I was listening to Hana, and it's really tough when one side of your family's protesting and the other side of the family is negotiating the Treaty settlement, but that's a reality for a lot of whānau Māori. My own family have been a classic example: they're all absolutely opposed to the Treaty settlement process, and my uncle Syd Jackson, Uncle Moana Jackson, who were my father's brothers and some of the strongest advocates ever in terms of kaupapa Māori, but also supported our people when they had to do settlements. So we've talked about that at length during the week, and it's good that the House can come together at these sorts of times, particularly after question time, because that can be a bit of a raucous time, and you wouldn't think it was the same House, actually. But I just want to say, as this is only a second reading, that it's incredibly important that we acknowledge the tribe, the iwi. We want to acknowledge Kerrin, our mate Kerrin Leoni, who's on the super-city council—first Māori woman elected on to the Auckland Council—from Ngāti Paoa, a strong advocate. We want to mihi to her for her advocacy for her people. I thank Dan Bidois and the Māori Affairs Committee for processing this through, and, obviously, the current Minister, Minister Goldsmith, and former Ministers Little and— [Interruption] Who? Hon Scott Simpson: Finlayson. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, he gets enough acknowledgments, Chris Finlayson—jingos! But without doubt, he did a very good job, too. So just being in the second reading, I want to acknowledge this, tautoko this kaupapa, and we look forward to the final reading when Ngāti Paoa people will receive their final dose of justice. Nō reira, tēnei te mihi ki a tātou katoa. Kia ora. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is with quiet pleasure that I stand up and speak in support of this bill, the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill. I'm honoured to be on the Māori Affairs Committee. It is an honour and it is a privilege, and I am grateful to my colleagues on the committee, most of whom have a beautiful Māori background, for accepting me—the "Lebo" on the Māori Affairs Committee. Now, the basic purpose of the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill is to give effect to some of the elements of the Ngāti Paoa deed of settlement, which was signed on 20 March 2021 by Ngāti Paoa, between Ngāti Paoa and the Crown. The deed is the final settlement of all historical Treaty claims of Ngāti Paoa, resulting from acts of the Crown or omissions of the Crown prior to 21 September 1992. This settlement deed includes an agreed historical account and Crown acknowledgments which form the basis of the Crown apology to Ngāti Paoa. Ngāti Paoa will receive redress that includes financial and commercial redress valued at around $23.5 million, along with a range of other commercial, cultural, and relationship items. But no amount of money will do anything to come close to erasing the pain and the suffering that the ancestors of Ngāti Paoa have been through, and not just the ancestors but those living right now. What I'm appreciative as well about the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill is that it includes also the return of 12 sites of cultural significance. A couple of days ago when I spoke in the House, I referred to how, with our Māori brothers and sisters, everything they do with respect to their culture—or to our culture, because I'm here—has significance. So what are these 12 sites of cultural significance? I feel it's important to list them here in the House. My colleagues have done such a great job of talking about the technicalities of the bill. Allow me, Mr Speaker, to list the 12 sites of cultural significance in this Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill. The first is Hine-nui-o-te-paua. It's 2 hectares as a fee simple for a papakāinga, which is a very, very important form of establishment that I've seen be established around when I go along with some of my friends to the blessings, and I think it can do such great wonder for the people involved with residing at these beautiful establishments. Kaiaua School property: 2 hectares. It's subject to a leaseback to the Ministry of Education. Māwhitipia, Mā—be patient with me, my friends. Māwhitipana: 1.9 hectares as a recreation reserve. Omaru: 40.6 hectares as a recreation reserve. Paoa Ururoa: just under half a hectare as a historical reserve. Paoa Ururua: 1.6 hectares as a recreation reserve—and this is all very important. Paoa Whanake, 2 hectares for a local marae; Papakura Pā—go, South Auckland!—as a scientific reserve; Pokai Wawahi Ika, 2.3 hectares; and three other lands of cultural significance as well. I'm pleased about that, and, again, nothing really goes close to erasing the suffering of the past, but this does that little bit where there's sites that will be vested back to Ngāti Paoa where cultural significance is in these sites, and our people of Ngāti Paoa can build again for the future. Now, I'd like to bring attention to who this settlement bill affects. Well, Ngāti Paoa comprises about 3,500 official members, as per census figures. As mentioned earlier by this great chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, the MP for Northcote, Dan Bidois, the area of interests for Ngāti Paoa referenced in the deed of settlement, the tribal land, stretches along the western shores of the Hauraki Gulf and the eastern suburbs of Auckland, and it comprises islands in the Tāmaki Strait including Waiheke and reaches across to the Coromandel Peninsula, and more. And so it will come as no surprise to the House that the Ngāti Paoa rohe encompasses some of the most majestic, breathtaking, and awe-inspiring places in our beautiful country, including, but not limited to, my beautiful electorate of Takanini. Indeed, many of the Auckland-based MPs fall within the Ngāti Paoa rohe, including, as I said, Takanini, the only home I have known since moving here to Aotearoa New Zealand over 12 years ago. So I would like to thank you, Ngāti Paoa members, including the many mates I have back in South Auckland and East Auckland, for your manaakitanga. I would also like to make particular mention of my dear friend Frank Haimona, a Ngāti Paoa child, who, through his work with our tamariki and rangatahi in Takanini within the Ngāti Paoa tribal land, ensures the essence of his homeland is cared for by the children for their futures—from planting trees all over the land to cultivating the fruit, vegetables, and herbs in their māra kai they have established in Takanini. Frank lives by what he was taught by his Ngāti Paoa tīpuna: connect the children to their whenua and culture, and they will strive. And this is what underpins the bill before us today to strengthen the future of Ngāti Paoa for their future, their mokopuna. Mokopuna is what drives the kaumātua and the kuia who have suffered so much to get this settlement to where it is today. I'd like to end my contribution today with a quote from one of the many submitters who shared their kōrero and their whakaaro to this bill.Lorna Rikihana said to us, " 'Whakapapa is history, and history is whakapapa' so our mana whenua holds firm and strong from our taunaha whenua tūpuna to all our descendants living today. We are not dead, but survive as living legacies, carrying our mokopuna forward in these changing times of the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill." The benefits of this settlement bill will be available to all members of Ngāti Paoa wherever they may live. Thank you to all who took place in bringing us to where we are today. I acknowledge Te Arawhiti. But I acknowledge even more, as I said, the kaumātua and the kuia, some of whom now rest in peace, that reaching a settlement was one of their dreams, not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of their future. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I commend this bill to the House. SPEAKER: The next call is a split call. I call Cushla Tangaere-Manuel. CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe e te Māngai, otirā tēnā rawa atu tātou katoa kua huihui mai i tēnei pō. Nōku te whiwhi, e te Māngai o te Whare, ki te tū ki te tautoko i tēnei pire, arā te Pire Whakataunga Kerēme a Ngāti Paoa. Tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou, ngā uri o Ngāti Paoa kua tae mai i tēnei ahiahi. Kua tae mai ā-tinana, ā, rātou kua tae mai ā-wairua, kia tau tonu tēnei waka ki uta mō koutou, otirā mō ō koutou uri whakatipu. Tēnei te wīwī Nāti e tangi atu nei ki a koutou, Ngāti Paoa. Ko mātou o Ngāti Porou ka noho ki rō puihi, arā tino isolated. I runga i tērā, kāre i raupatungia ō mātou whenua. Kei a mātou tonu ō mātou whenua ahakoa e kī ana i te kōti, kei a mātou tonu ō mātou whenua. Ko te take o taku tangi ki a koutou, me pēhea te Māori ka tū hei tangata whenua mēnā kāre e taea te tū ki runga i tōu ake whenua? Nā reira me whakatika ka tika. Me pēhea te tangata whenua e taea te karanga ki tana wai mēnā kua tangohia ngā wai i tō koutou whenua? Kei te tangi te ngākau ki a koutou, ki a rātou kua wehe atu, ā, ko te tūmanako kia whakatika ka tika mō ngā uri whakatipu. Heoi anō rā kua oti i aku hoa o roto o te Whare nei ngā mihi, nā reira ko tāku te mihi hoki ki ngā Minita nā rātou tēnei pire i kawe i roto i tēnei Whare, arā ko Finlayson tērā, ko Little, tēnei hoki te mihi atu ki a Paul Goldsmith nāna i kawe kia whakawhiti whakaaro tātou i te rā tonu nei. I rongo mātou, ki te tango te whenua i te tangata, ehara ko te whenua anake ka tangohia. Ka tangohia te reo, ka tangohia ngā tikanga, ka tangohia hoki te hononga o te tangata ki tōna whenua. Ā, i runga i tērā, kua kite mātou te maha o ngā Māori kua ngaro i tēnei ao. Ka noho ngoikore ana, kāore te nuinga e kite i te hononga engari kei reira tonu te hononga. Ki te tangohia te whenua, ka ngaro te Māori. Nā te mea ko te whenua ko mātou, ko ngā wai ko mātou tonu. Ko Papatūānuku, ko Ranginui tērā. Nā reira me whakatika i ngā hē o te Karauna ka tika. Me whakatika te mana o te wai ka tika. Me whakatika kia whai kāinga ngā mokopuna a Ngāti Paoa ka tika, kia taea rātou ki te tū ki te whakahua i tō rātou reo i runga i tō rātou ake whenua, ki te whakamahi i ā rātou tikanga i runga i ō rātou ake marae, ki te whai mana rātou hei mana whenua o Ngāti Paoa. E te Māngai o te Whare, kāre au e pīrangi kia tōroangia ēnei kōrero. Kua roa nei a Ngāti Paoa e whawhai ana, e tatari ana kia whakatika i ngā hē o te Karauna. Nā reira kāre e pīrangi kia tōroangia, kua roa nei te wā, tae noa ki tēnei wā. Ko tāku he mihi atu anō ki a koutou o Ngāti Paoa i tae ā-tinana mai, koutou i whawhai mō tō koutou iwi. He mihi hoki ki a rātou kua wehe, rātou kāre e kore kua tae ā-wairua mai i tēnei rā. He mihi hoki ki ngā uri whakatipu o Ngāti Paoa nā te mea ko rātou ngā tamariki mokopuna e whakarongo mai ana, e mātakitaki mai ana i tēnei ahiahi, ka puta i a rātou ngā hua ā koutou mā i whawhai mā rātou kia taea e rātou te tū i runga i ō koutou whenua, ki te taha o ō koutou moana, ō koutou awa, te whakahua i ō koutou tikanga i roto i tō koutou ake reo. Hei whakakapi, he mihi hoki ki te komiti, arā kei te kite atu au i a koe, Tiamana Dan, koutou i whakaae i tēnei pire. Nā reira i runga i ngā mihi kua oti i a au, nōku te hōnore, e te Māngai o te Whare, ki te whakaae i tēnei pire. Tēnā tātou. [Thank you, Speaker, indeed greetings to all of us who have assembled here this evening. It is my good fortune to stand in support of this bill, the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill. This is also an acknowledgement of you, the descendants of Ngāti Paoa who have arrived here this evening. Those who have come in person, and also those who have come in spirit, so that this canoe makes landfall for you, indeed for your flourishing descendants. Here is a true, blue Ngāti Porou that grieves for you, Ngāti Paoa. Us in Ngāti Porou, we live in the bush, so we are very isolated. And because of that, our lands were not confiscated. We remain in possession of our land even though the court is full, we are still in possession of our lands. The reason that I grieve for you is: how can a Māori stand as tangata whenua if you are unable to stand on your own land? So that must be corrected. How can the people of the land call to their water if the water has been removed from your land? My heart cries for you, for those who have passed away, and my hope is that this should be corrected for the growing descendants. However, my colleagues in this House have already made the necessary acknowledgements, so I will acknowledge the Ministers responsible for carrying this bill through this House; that is Finlayson, Little, and I would also like to acknowledge Paul Goldsmith who brought it here so that we could exchange ideas this very day. We have heard that if you take the land away from someone, it is not only the land that is taken. The language is taken, customary practices are taken, and the connection that the person has with their land is also taken. And, due to that, we have seen many Māori that are lost in this world. They remain listless, the majority don't see the connection, but the connection is still present. If the land is taken, the Māori people are lost. Because we are the land, we are the very waters. That is Papatūānuku and Ranginui. So the mistakes of the Crown must be corrected. The power of water must be corrected. It must be corrected so that the grandchildren of Ngāti Paoa will have a home, so that they can stand and express their language on their own land, to enact their customary practices on their own marae, so that they have their own power as the terrestrial authority of Ngāti Paoa. I don't want to drag out these comments. Ngāti Paoa have been fighting for a long time and waiting for a long time for the mistakes of the Crown to be corrected. So I don't want to drag this out, it's been a long time up until now. What I'd like to do is again acknowledge those who have passed on, those who have without a doubt come here in spirit today. I also acknowledge the growing descendants of Ngāti Paoa because they are the children and grandchildren that are listening, that are watching this evening, and the prosperity that you fought for on their behalf will come to them so that they may stand on your lands, beside your oceans, your rivers, and to express your customary practices in your own language. To conclude, I also acknowledge the committee; I see you, Chairperson Dan, and all of you that approved this bill. And so with regard to the acknowledgments that I have made, it is my honourto support this bill. Greetings to all of us.] GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie): E te Māngai, e tautoko ana au kia tautoko ai tēnei whakaaetanga i waenganui i te iwi o Ngāti Paoa me tēnei Whare, te Whare o te Kāwanatanga. Ki au, ki ōku whakaaro, tēnei te tino mahi a tēnei Whare nā te mea ko tēnei te mahi o te rongomau, kia rongomau ai i waenganui i ngā iwi o tēnei motu. Ahakoa te whānui o te mamae, ahakoa te whānui o te wero, kia whai atu ai tēnei Whare i tērā momo rongomau. Nā reira tēnā koutou e ngā kaiwhiriwhiri o tēnei whakaaetanga. Ko ā koutou mahi te mahi a te Atua. Me ngā mihi hoki ki ngā tāngata o te iwi o Ngāti Paoa. E ai ki ngā kōrero a te mema o mua, ahakoa i te tinana āe rānei, i te wairua, i te tinana hoki nā te mea tēnei pire e pā ana ki te whai atu I te whakapūāwai o tō iwi, āe. Nā reira kāore e tū ki konei ki te kōrero e pā ana ki ngā taipitopito o tēnei pire, i whakatakotoria ērā taipitopito e ngā mema o mua. Engari ko tōku tūmanako, ko tōku wawata i tēnei rā ko te kōrero e pā ana ki tōku wheako o te moana me ngā motu me te whenua hoki o Ngāti Paoa. [To the Speaker, I am in support of the support for this agreement between the people of Ngāti Paoa and this House, the House of the Government. To me, in my opinion, this is the real work of this House because of this endeavour of peace, that there be enduring peace between the people of this nation. Despite the breadth of the anguish, despite the breadth of the challenge, this House should pursue that type of peace. And so I acknowledge the negotiators of this agreement. You do God's work. Greetings also to the people of the iwi of Ngāti Paoa. According to the comments of the previous member, whether they are here in person or in spirit, because this bill concerns the pursuit of the flourishing of your people—yes. And so I do not stand here to speak about the details of this bill, those details were laid out by the previous members. But my hope, my dream today, is to speak about my experience of the ocean and the islands and the lands also of Ngāti Paoa.] When I first graduated from Victoria University, I had the pleasure of living for a couple of years at the end of the Mahurangi Peninsula, where I looked out, literally every day, on the moana and the motu of Ngāti Paoa. Most evenings, I would kayak out to Moturekareka and motu Kitekite. I remember, one night, coming back through the moonlight—literally, the moon was on my back, and it was from the island heading back to the end of the peninsula. As I kayaked through there—it is a memory that's wedded into my mind, and it came to my mind as I read this bill—every time that I dipped the oar in, that fluoro-green phosphorescence would come up, and the life that it spoke of. That was what came to mind today, when I read of this bill, and that was a picture for me of what I hope and pray for this bill, and the fresh start that it might be, for the people of Ngāti Paoa. I have also been privileged to spend time on the island of Rotoroa, Rotoroa Island, and also, just last month, I was on Motuihe. And everywhere I go there, the wairua is there, as it was this past Saturday morning, when I was invited to the opening blessing—even though it was at four in the morning—of a new housing project in Mount Wellington. As their kaumātua and kaikaranga led us through the blessing, I was again privileged to sit within the wairua and to hear the calls of Ngāti Paoa, and that is the primary reason why I stand here today. The details of this bill have been well canvassed. I more than anything want to mihi to the people for whom this bill exists, what this is all about, which is their flourishing. That is the purpose of these settlement bills. As has been said, eloquently, by previous speakers, these bills do not seek to wash away the sins of the past—that can never be done. Rather, what they do is acknowledge that when mana motuhake is restored, a new future is promised, a new future beckons. For that reason, it is my absolute privilege, as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, as a member of this Government, to stand in the awa of many Governments before and, resoundingly, recommend this bill to the House. Kia ora. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a great privilege to be able to speak, as the member for Dunedin, on the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill today. Obviously, I'm from a place very far away from Ngāti Paoa, but my father was very lucky to grow up and spend his high school years at the college that his father started at, Mahurangi College, at the top of the rohe. So I acknowledge what the previous speakers have said as well, about the beautiful part of the country that this is and the importance to all those who live there. I also want to touch on the overlapping interests in this part of the country as well and how that has taken a very long time for this bill to end up here today, having its second reading. That, we've heard, has not been easy. There's been a lot of people involved in this process who have passed in that time, and I want to acknowledge all of their work. I also want to acknowledge the Hauraki Gulf in general. I've been lucky to be part of—both on the Environment Committee and previously as a Minister—the Hauraki Gulf/Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill. And I want to acknowledge, of course, all the important work that Ngāti Paoa has done in that part of the country, and continues to do, with rāhui and other work that we've heard about from other speakers—that's well needed. Also the work of the Ministers, going through many administrations, which just goes to the amount of time that has taken with these processes, from Chris Finlayson to Andrew Little to now Paul Goldsmith. Of course , with all of those people, there come many officials and the processes before that even starts. And even more than all of the officials, all of the people have been involved from the iwi. And what a lot of work—almost there. The bill itself has some very important provisions, and one of those is the acknowledgments. These are long and they start at page 12 of the bill, at clause 9. I just wanted to pay particular attention to some of those because this is very sober reading when we read the acknowledgments, and, of course, when we get to the apology as well. But, at subclause 17 of clause 9: "The Crown acknowledges that environmental changes in pollution since the 19th century have been a source of distress and grievance for Ngāti Paoa. In particular, the Crown acknowledges that modifications to the course of the Piako River and its tributaries since the 1890s have drained resource-rich wetlands, destroyed Ngāti Paoa wāhi tapu, and caused significant harm the kaimoana sources relied on by Ngāti Paoa." That reflects many terrible actions over many years, and it's important that it's addressed in this bill. There are other acknowledgements. We've heard a powerful speech before from Jenny Marcroft, about the distress when people lose their language, and that's included in the acknowledgements as well. We've heard about land being taken, and, of course, the other environmental destructions in the environment. We go to the apology, then, at clause 10, that includes: "The Crown profoundly regrets its failure to protect Ngāti Paoa from the rapid alienation of land in the decades following the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and the loss of life and the devastation caused by hostilities arising from its invasions of lands south of the Mangatāwhiri." And it goes on. But my point is that these are very serious issues, and I can't imagine the amount of emotion that's gone in to all of the work that has led up to this bill, from all of the people affected by what's happened over these many, many years. I also note that some of the claims that are part of this bill lead to different acknowledgments in different pieces of legislation, such as the Resource Management Act and the Conservation Act. This is very important in the current political context. There is a lot at stake for our environment at the moment, and it seems that the only way things can be protected is if they are in settlement legislation. So it's important that this piece of legislation continues through the House and that you have those safeguards. So, again, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this. I wish everybody well in continuing with this piece of legislation so it can have its third reading. Kia ora. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Kia ora. He hōnore nui mōku ki te kōrero ki a koutou katoa. He mea nui ki ahau te tū i mua i a koutou me te whakanui i a koutou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. [Hello. It is an honour for me to speak to you all. It is important for me to stand before you and celebrate you all. Thank you very much.] It's a privilege for me, indeed, to rise and stand and take a call on this significant bill for Ngāti Paoa. I'd like to acknowledge Ngāti Paoa, a very proud iwi from the North and bordering on the Hauraki Gulf, on the Auckland side, as far south as Te Aroha. It is indeed a beautiful part of Aotearoa, and I'd like to acknowledge the deep pride and connection to their whenua. In the 2013 census, which was the information that was provided, there were 3,500 members of Ngāti Paoa, but I am sure there are many more now. As a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, I'm beginning my journey of understanding the historical events, the raupatu, and terrible atrocities that have found us in this House today, in the second reading of this bill. To recap, this deed was signed by Andrew Little at Kaiaua, but there were many years of work that went before, years of discussion and negotiation. Whilst many of us are new to this work, we must pay tribute to the many who showed true fortitude, commitment, and dedication to their cause. Leadership is everything in these kinds of negotiations, and Ngāti Paoa has shown that. Many of these people involved right from the beginning of this negotiation and working through the claims into a deed will not have been able to see the finalisation of their claim, and we hope that they can now rest more easily, knowing that the extreme effort they made will pave the way for a better future for their whānau, their communities, their tamariki, and their mokopuna both here and those yet to come. National has always supported this bill, and is pleased to continue to do so. Previous Ministers: of course the Hon Chris Finlayson KC made a significant contribution, which was then followed by the Hon Andrew Little, who completed the deed and was there for the signing and then the first reading through the House, to the select committee stage. In fact, negotiations began in 2011, when iwi members gave a mandate to negotiators to progress a comprehensive settlement with the Crown. An agreement in principle was reached in 2011, and following 10 long years, the deed was signed in 2021. I would like to just make mention and thank Te Arawhiti for their work in getting this bill to this stage; the select committee, both past and present; the negotiators; and everyone who has been involved to this point. The Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill is intended to be the final settlement of all historical Treaty claims of Ngāti Paoa, resulting from acts or omissions by the Crown prior to 21 September 1992. It is made up of a package that includes an agreed historical account and Crown acknowledgments, which form the basis of an apology to Ngāti Paoa; cultural redress, including the vesting of 12 sites in the Ngāti Paoa area of interest, which you've already heard from my colleague Rima Nakhle; a financial redress of a total of $23.5 million; and a commercial redress involving the purchase of some Crown properties. Ngāti Paoa are a maritime people, as has also been mentioned today, with their origins to the Te Arawa and Tainui waka. Their area of interest includes Mahurangi, Tāmaki-makau-rau, the Hauraki Plains and gulf islands, and parts of Waikato. The 2018 census subsequently estimated that Ngāti Paoa had 4,800 members—so there you go. Back in 2009, the Crown proposed a regional approach to four Treaty settlements to iwi and hapū, including Ngāti Paoa, with interests in the Kaipara, Tāmaki-makau-rau, and Hauraki regions. Over the course of the 20th century, almost all of Ngāti Paoa's remaining land was alienated to private purchasers and the Crown. Land was also taken under the Public Works Act, and these public works processes sometimes meant pā and wāhi tapu sites were destroyed. In 1908, the Crown authorised a project to drain and develop the Hauraki wetlands, and over the following years the Crown altered waterways, drowned the wetlands, and changed the course of the Waihou and Piako rivers. By the end of the 20th century, only 27 percent of Ngāti Paoa spoke te reo. The decline of Ngāti Paoa tribal structures and the loss of te reo Māori meant that the kaumātua felt they lost the mātauranga of their iwi and their whenua and the ability to pass it on to their tamariki. In the 20th and 21st centuries, like many iwi around the country, Ngāti Paoa experienced declining health and many inequities and accessibility issues. In the select committee stages of the hearing of this bill, there were a number of submissions worth mentioning, and I want to just focus on a couple that came through. This one from Tania Tarawa, who said in her submission in the concluding remarks "at the signing of the Ngāti Paoa Deed of Settlement at Wharekawa Marae [she] spoke about our vision for the future [and] About the promise of a new day and the dawn of a new tomorrow. Ngāti Paoa has lost and suffered much but perhaps the worst has been the erosion of our identity and the fracturing of our relationships. We are desperate for this process to be over. We are ready to build our own future and restore our cultural narratives back to ourselves. We anxiously await the time when what remains of our precious whenua will be returned to us and our mokopuna may be connected once again to the places that are our birthright. Most of all," she said, "we want to and need to rebuild our relationships with each other and let go of the hurts of the past. The passage of the bill through the House will be the marker point that begins that journey for us." Of course, we've already heard of some of the great words of Mihingarangi Forbes, who also submitted to the process and has had a long association of whakapapa to Ngāti Paoa. She said the trauma of language loss plays heavy in her whānau—and my colleague Jenny Marcroft alluded to that. But what she said at the end was "It's time Ngāti Paoa begins to heal, to revive our Ngāti Paoa reo, our own customs and tikanga specific to our hapū."—and therefore she supported the bill and its journey through the House. Glen Tupuhi, the trust chairman, described the settlement process as long and challenging, but ultimately a defining moment in Ngāti Paoa's history. His statement underscored the significance of the settlement in marking a new beginning for Ngāti Paoa, allowing them to rebuild their estate and legacy while acknowledging the ongoing work to address other parts of their settlement. There were many great submissions to the process that were heard by my colleagues, and I would like to just acknowledge all of those submitters who took the time and made the journey to come and speak and to be part of that process. It is sometimes difficult, challenging, emotional—and it's just one part, I think, of the start of that healing process. As I said on Tuesday when I spoke to the Ngāti Hei claims—the second reading for that bill—there is no redress, no property, no amount of money, no apology that will ever be enough for those who have gone before us. It takes time, dedication, and the patience of a saint to calmly and methodically work through the claims process. I can only imagine the countless hours of discussion and negotiation that have brought us to this point, the sleepless nights, and the pain that comes with explaining the historical injustices that have been. In my part of the country, the East Coast, particularly Tairāwhiti—and my friend Cushla Tangaere-Manuel spoke earlier about this—and also in the Eastern Bay, which forms part of my electorate, I've seen firsthand the clarity that comes with finalising this long-held objective of Treaty claims. What I have also seen, both at home and around the country, is a growing mana; a confidence to own the issues, to provide solutions, and bring opportunity for jobs, apprenticeships, and the unlocking of potential in iwi. Whether that is the ability to now buy property, buy farms or commercial entities, the opportunities now come to Ngāti Paoa. The monetary value is not huge in the daily sense, but empowerment is invaluable and the return of culturally significant sites and the ability now to have aspirations, hope, and to be the owners of their own destiny is powerful on its own—long-awaited and a tribute to those who have gone before who won't see the future this iwi can now bring to itself. I urge Ngāti Paoa to look up, hold their heads high, and take a deep breath. The past can't be changed, but Ngāti Paoa can now define how it moves forward. My colleagues and I wish them all the very best. They have come a long way to get to this point. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. NEW ZEALAND SUPERANNUATION AND RETIREMENT INCOME (CONTROLLING INTERESTS) AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I move, That the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: This bill amends the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001. It was introduced last year to Parliament by the previous Minister of Finance, the Hon Grant Robertson, and at that time when I rose to speak, I was cautious in my support for it and urged that it go through a full select committee process. The bill has now gone through that process and today the Government is in a position to support its passage through this House. The bill repeals and replaces the current sections 59 to 59B of the Act, which currently stop the New Zealand Superannuation Fund from taking a controlling stake in entities. That was a key provision of this Act when it was enacted, and it reflected the then early stage of the fund and the fact that it wasn't mature along the investment cycle. It is now in a very different place. The Superannuation Fund has now got extensive investments, both here in New Zealand and internationally, and is far more mature in terms of both its size, its scale, and its capability. It is in line with that that it is now appropriate that the fund will from time to time consider more complex asset classes for investment and will take a lead investor role. These amendments in the Act remove a restriction that will now allow the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to take a controlling stake in entities in the future, and I think it's obvious to members of the House that that opens a lot more possibilities for the kinds of investments that the super fund can make. I would say, particularly here at home, there has been much discussion about the fact that we have significant infrastructure needs in this country, that funding and financing those infrastructure needs will not all be met directly from the Crown because not all of those assets need sit directly on the core Crown balance sheet. It is likely that an entity like the New Zealand Superannuation Fund would in future choose to invest in a controlling entity in these sorts of assets and many other sorts of assets where it believes it can get a good return, consistent with the investment principles. This bill does balance out, I think, the concerns that many in this House will have had that by opening up this potential, there could be politicisation of the way in which the fund invests. So the bill also adds a requirement that the Guardians' statement of investment policy standards and procedures must include details of the governance framework for the implementation and operation of controlled entities. At the same time, it amends Schedule 1AA of the Act to require that within 10 years, as part of the review, a review of these amendments be made. It also ensures—and I think this is important—that where there is a controlling investment made by the fund, it does not result in that entity then being treated as part of the Crown, and therefore subject to the obligations that are intended for public sector organisations. So, as I said, the select committee considered the importance of the Guardians being able to invest directly in a wide range of investment opportunities in New Zealand but also considered what was required to preserve its independence. The select committee was satisfied that the Guardians will, with this amendment, be able to seek out further investment opportunities, and, in particular, have more flexibility both when entering a holding and exiting a holding—that is to say that at the moment, the Superannuation Fund can be restricted from entering even a partial holding in an entity if it thinks there is a risk that changes to the ownership structure of that entity in future could leave the Superannuation Fund incidentally with a controlling interest from which it is barred from having in law, and that is also to say that there may be circumstances in which the Superannuation Fund would be forced to exit an asset, even though it was meeting its investment criteria, because of this restriction in the law. I think it's important to note that enabling controlling interests in this way is not something unusual. In fact, it brings the New Zealand Superannuation Fund in line with many global peers. As I said earlier, typically as sovereign wealth funds mature and develop internal expertise, develop a wider portfolio of investments, more of its capital gets managed in-house rather than through secondary funds. Similarly, we have seen here that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, in the past 20 years, has grown that in-house expertise by developing internal procedures and processes to manage direct investments, and it believes it has reached a point where it is capable of taking this lead investor role with the ability to take a controlling interest in businesses. So when we come to this question of the Guardians' independence, I'd note that the select committee commented that the proposed amendments aim to supplement existing protections in the Act to ensure independence from public or ministerial pressure. I agree with the select committee's finding in that regard. The bill in no way weakens or alters the Guardians' independence from political influence in relation to investment decisions, which is provided for in section 64(2) of the Act, and to ensure appropriate oversight, the bill requires the board of the Guardians to include in the statement of investment policy standards and procedures the details of their governance framework for the implementation and operation of controlled entities. I think this provision provides an extra level of transparency and assurance about the circumstances and ways in which the fund would make such investments. I'd note that the select committee commented that the 2019 statutory independent review of the Guardians done by Willis Towers Watson was positive and commented favourably on the Guardians' governance model and its approach to considering domestic assets for investment. This, I think, should give the House confidence that this is, in fact, a mature entity that has the processes and systems in place to ensure it makes good investment decisions into the future. The select committee noted that by allowing the Guardians to take a controlling interest in more active operating companies, it will actually widen the portfolio that it can invest in. This could actually be particularly important in a counter-cyclical way, which is to say that at times, if the economy is in difficulty, having a long-term enduring investor able to invest in stakes in businesses at that time could be beneficial to the fund. The select committee also commented that the proposed inclusion of requirements for the governance of controlled entities in the Guardians' own primary investment documents should operate flexibly but also be a binding set of rules to help mitigate the risks of taking controlling interests. I believe that, ultimately, removing the control restriction will enable the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to access a wider group of viable investment partners and opportunities, that this could, in the long run, lead to better investments on behalf of New Zealanders and investments that can withstand short-term fluctuations in valuation. Finally, I would say that all of this is consistent with something that is very important and that we should not ever, I believe, step away from in this House, which is that the Guardians' mandate is to invest the Superannuation Fund on a prudent commercial basis, because, actually, the purpose of the fund is to ensure maximum returns over the long run to support the payment of New Zealand's superannuation into the future. We do not step away from that principle, but making these amendments today, we will allow the Guardians to manage the fund in a manner consistent with best-practice portfolio management. So, in closing, the passage of this bill will promote operational efficiencies and will help ensure the New Zealand Superannuation Fund's assets are being managed in the best way possible. Given, actually, how big the New Zealand Superannuation Fund is on the Crown balance sheet, these changes do actually have potential for material gains, I believe, for our economy. So I thank the select committee for its consideration of the bill, and I commend the committee's report to the House. SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to acknowledge the Minister of Finance's comments in relation to her support in, obviously, bringing this bill to the House. She set up quite neatly how the view of the cautious support in the first reading has now come to full support of the bill, and I do want to acknowledge when we do agree on things. So thank you, Minister, for your comments in relation to the bill. The bill had its first reading just over a year ago. As part of the policy development for this bill—because it was subject to a review, an earlier review—the previous Minister of Finance, the Hon Grant Robertson, wanted to check in with Sir Michael Cullen, who was the founder of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. He wanted to check in with him about his views about this because he wanted to ensure that—you know, was this the intention and purpose? Because it was very clear that, when the fund was first put in, the ability to have controlling interests were not part of that element; it was not part of the initial Act as it was introduced. Then, obviously, with the review, they allowed for what are called "fund investment vehicles", which could take a controlling interest in some entities, such as land, as I understand it, and some particular rural vehicles. But he wanted to go back to Sir Michael and just be able to check base with him to say, "Is this what you were thinking of at the time when you established this fund?" I do want to pay tribute to Sir Michael, because it wasn't long after that that Sir Michael did pass away. When the Hon Grant Robertson went to Sir Michael and asked him, he agreed it was time. It was not the right time when the fund was first established, because, at that time, they wanted to ensure that the purpose of the fund was to grow as fast as possible to meet the expectations needed to, basically, build its bank. Then, as things slightly change over the years, the fund has exceeded all expectations for what the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation had wanted—so it's actually gone past that. So Sir Michael said, "Now is about right. Now is about the time to be able to make that policy change." So I do want to acknowledge the late Sir Michael Cullen for, first of all, his founding of the fund, and then, second of all, for his careful advice that he gave to the previous Minister of Finance, the Hon Grant Robertson. As the Minister has set out, there are some peculiarities with this particular bill. As members of this House will know, the Official Information Act (OIA) basically covers most official information of Crown entities and of Crown agencies. But this particular bill has a very purposeful exclusion from the OIA, and that is, again, to ensure that the private sector part of the fund is not subject to the OIA and treated in the same ways, that the information—which would probably be highly commercially sensitive—is not subject to that Official Information Act request. The bill also does require there are five-monthly reviews of the super fund and how it functions. The bill does talk to—basically, the 10th-year review of this particular bill coming in is to ensure that that review takes a backward look to ensure that it is tracking the way that it should be in the 10 years after the bill gets passed. It's good to have those checkpoints. I also want to briefly support some of the changes that the Finance and Expenditure Committee—sorry, more commentary that they had. They were really careful to ensure that they weren't overstepping the mark, because they wanted to—as members have said in the House previously and through the select committee process—ensure that the Guardians stay as a separate and independent entity, and they wanted to make sure they didn't overstep that mark, which is why one of the considerations that the Finance and Expenditure Committee thought about was in relation to some of the amendments to section 61. That was whether it should remain in the primary legislation or whether they should enact secondary legislation. But, again, the members basically considered that, no, it was necessary to keep it as part of the bill as introduced. So I just want to acknowledge the Finance and Expenditure Committee. So there's not much more I can add on this part of the bill. Obviously, if there is an intention that we need to have another look to ensure that the revised-track version of the bill in the committee of the whole House stage, if it needs to be done, then we will consider that at that particular stage. Otherwise, this side of the House, the Labour Party, does commend this bill to the House. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm speaking on this particular bill, which amends the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001, and this is the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill, second reading. And, in this particular case, the Green Party supports this bill. I don't know if I can ever get over just how much of a mouthful some of these amendment bills can be! In terms of this particular bill, when we were looking at this bill, as the previous speakers have stated, this was something that the Green Party supported through first reading, and this is something that was spoken on by our previous spokesperson for senior citizens, Ricardo Menéndez March. As this was going through the Finance and Expenditure Committee—and, again, the previous speaker, the honourable Minister Nicola Willis, has already mentioned in terms of some of the considerations that the select committee has taken. This is particularly around some of the risks and the benefits, and risks of removing the restrictions on these particular controlling interests, and in terms of constraining the guardian investment mandate in the legislation as well as the Guardians' capacity to use controlling interests effectively and responsibly. In this particular case, I think one of the things I would like to address, again, like the previous speakers have spoken on, is that it is, essentially, amending something—it is amending section 59 of the principal Act, allowing it to be a broader scope in terms of the way that the Guardians are able to manage some of these funds. But, as the previous speaker, the Hon Barbara Edmonds, spoke on the Guardians' present use of the fund investment vehicles—and this is something that I would like to kind of point out, in particular—currently, the Guardians are able to use the FIVs, the fund investment vehicles, as a tool, as well as being able to acquire controlling interests in assets such as rural lands and real estate. I think this is something that the Green Party is really, really interested in. One of the things we would like to see—a missed opportunity, when it was going through select committee—is that we're able to divest more towards productive investments, as opposed to speculation investments. I think that is something that will be beneficial to Aotearoa's economy on the whole. In particular, in this case, we noticed that the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation could have a substantial and greater influence over our economy, and, given that it's such a large potential investor, we really would encourage the particular fund to be guided in their activities into funds such as statutory directives to divest from fossil fuels and the requirement for a portion of the fund to be targeted towards social impact investments, including emissions reduction as well as aligning with the Government's goal of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. I think one of the other things I would like to point out, in this particular case when we're looking at the Superannuation Fund, is that although it was established in 2001—led by Sir Michael Cullen, in this particular case. Although there are several exclusions that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund (NZSF) does not invest in—such as tobacco, such as any sort of cluster munitions and anti-personnel mines, some of the Grasberg mines in Papua, whale meat, etc., etc. We would like to just point out that although this is something that is mentioned in the 2009 Willis Towers Watson report—that, yes, there were positive findings on the Guardians' governance model. But we would like to point out that, previously, this particular NZSF has been seen and has faced criticism from investing into a series of companies—actually, 24 companies—at the cost of $100 million that has supplied combat aircraft to the Myanmar junta, which is currently a very hot topic and also a topic that's very close to Myanmar communities in Aotearoa. And this is, again, something to be cautionary about when we're looking at how the fund is used, and particularly as we expand the scope of that fund through the amendment to section 59. I think one other thing that I would like to point out, in this particular case—and this is, again, one of those opportunities where Aotearoa is really looking ahead and then thinking about the future of Aotearoa, and particularly the future of our senior citizens, and, in this particular case, by having something like this particular fund. One of the things I would also like to mention is the broader vision of this fund and of superannuation in Aotearoa, to support our senior people as they're heading into retirement. This is something that we would like to see, by opening up funding opportunities as a controlling investment that we're able to continue, as Te Ara Ahunga Ora, the Retirement Commission, said—that we would like to see the superannuation age being kept at 65, as opposed to being increased to 67. Because, to be perfectly honest, the people who will be harmed by this particular increase, as we see, will be people such as myself—the millennials who are already burdened by the cost of living; by the lack of ability to afford a warm, dry, safe home that we can call our own; and also by student debt. So, in this particular case, we will see that my generation will be the generation that suffers if we see that age being increased in terms of our superannuation. On top of that, another thing to also consider is, as we're looking at the model of the Superannuation Fund and particularly being able to invest and have greater returns, as the Minister of Finance suggested, we're also looking at opening up that possibility and also addressing the fact that there are sections of our communities—particularly those with significant and recorded and evidence-based lower life expectancy—that may never enjoy the superannuation at the age of 65, like our Māori, like our Pasifika communities. And the fact that when we're looking at—particularly women, in general, are also more likely going to get lower superannuation, as a result because of the fact that we do see things like the gender pay gap, we do see that a lot of our women are in unpaid care work. So I think a lot of these just state that the importance of something like the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and what it could achieve and how it could provide for our people in Aotearoa. And with that, the Green Party commends this bill to the House. SPEAKER: This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until Tuesday—sorry, I'll just turn the page over—30 April, 2 p.m. Debate interrupted. The House adjourned at 6.01 p.m.