Parliamentary Debates

Transcription

1 Fifty-second Parliament Parliamentary Debates (HANSARD) CORRECTED DAILY (subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume) Thursday, 3 May 2018 (for inclusion in Volume 729) WELLINGTON, NEW ZEALAND Published under the authority of the House of Representatives 2018

2

3 THURSDAY, 3 MAY 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS BUSINESS STATEMENT ORAL QUESTIONS Questions to Ministers Question No. 1 Prime Minister BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE ORAL QUESTIONS Questions to Ministers Question No. 2 Local Government Question No. 3 Finance Question No. 4 Social Development Question No. 5 Transport Question No. 6 Trade and Export Growth Question No. 7 Health Question No. 8 Education Question No. 9 Conservation Question No. 10 Energy and Resources Question No. 11 Pike River Re-entry Question No. 12 Regional Economic Development NGĀTI TAMAOHO CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILL Second Reading OFFICES OF PARLIAMENT Address to Governor-General FAMILIES COMMISSION ACT REPEAL BILL Second Reading CROWN MINERALS AMENDMENT BILL First Reading LOCAL ELECTORAL MATTERS BILL First Reading

4

5 3 May 2018 Business Statement 3437 Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. Prayers. THURSDAY, 3 MAY 2018 BUSINESS STATEMENT Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Next week, the House will consider a range of legislation, including the first readings of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill, the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill, the Local Electoral Matters Bill, and the Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngati Porou Bill (No 2). The Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill will have its committee stage. The Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill will have its second reading and committee stage. The Families Commission Act Repeal Bill will have its committee stage and third reading. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the Leader of the House. I wonder if, for planning purposes, the House leader could indicate whether parliamentary colleagues should be clearing their diaries and planning for urgency on Friday, 18 May. Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I can assure the House that I have fully informed the Business Committee of the Government s intentions in that regard. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1 Prime Minister 1. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government s policies and actions? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: On behalf of the Prime Minister, yes, most certainly when they re in their context. Hon Paula Bennett: Is her Government still focused on getting people into work, and, if so, can she confirm that since October, only 4,000 jobs had been created per month? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What I can say is the Government has never had any other greater priority than to get New Zealanders back into work. We ve just had the most stunning record in the last 10 years the lowest that the unemployment rate has ever been in 10 years. Hon Paula Bennett: Can she confirm that in the two years before the election, 10,000 extra jobs were created each month, on average, leading to New Zealand having the third-highest employment rate in the developed world, and we now only have 4,000 jobs being created per month? Mr SPEAKER: The member can answer the second part. He s got no responsibility for the first. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, Mr Speaker, I could answer the first part as well by saying it s not true. As for the second part, what we can say and it s a cause for enormous celebration, which I d invite the member to join is that we ve got the lowest unemployment rate in 10 years. Hon Paula Bennett: Will her Government s policy to shut down oil and gas exploration, putting more than 11,000 jobs at risk, help or hinder job creation? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: There could be no comment more far from the truth than that last statement in respect of shutting down. First of all, no existing permit is being shut down, and everybody in this country needs to hear it, and the people of

6 3438 Oral Questions 3 May 2018 Taranaki should not have to hear this miserable message that is false and is extreme. An area the size of the North Island will still be available for exploration, probably for the next 30, 40 years. Hon Paula Bennett: Does she agree that our welfare system should be one of reciprocal obligations, and those that can look for work should? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We, as a Government, have been very concerned to ensure that we take responsibility, when people are unemployed, to get them back to work as fast as possible. That s why we have so many initiatives to take people who were out of work when we become the Government back into work with a real future. Hon Paula Bennett: Does she agree that beneficiaries should be drug-free and able to pass a drug test if that is what a potential job requires? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Could I just say that the policies that we are working on do not have that harsh provision, because if someone is not drug-free, it doesn t mean that they re beyond redemption, that serious programmes cannot turn their lives around, and that s what we intend to do. We see the positive side of sound social policy, not the harsh, stringent side of right-wing arrogance. Hon Paula Bennett: Does she agree that someone who is on welfare and meets the criteria of a job search should be sanctioned if they repeatedly refuse to attend job interviews? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, we are developing policies with respect to the employed and the long-term unemployed in this country. That policy will be unfolded and be, possibly, in some description, described as to its costings in the Budget on 17 Alastair Scott: This must hurt, saying this. This must really hurt. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I beg your pardon? Hon Members: Who s that? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That s a fascinating question. When it came to issues of unemployment for example, the closure of a road near his electorate last time he didn t even turn up. There were 600 people there, including me, but he never turned up at Foxton, he remembers that. So, as to who he is, nobody s any wiser in the Wairarapa either. Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As entertaining as that answer was, it didn t answer the question at all. Mr SPEAKER: Well, actually, when supplementaries are made, even from the seat by the member for Wairarapa, the member can t expect the answer not to be diverted. Hon Paula Bennett: Will the Prime Minister support an increase to benefits, above inflation, in this year s Budget? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I say that we are at the eleventh hour of some glorious news, which will be announced on 11 May. That member should just be a little bit more patient. After all, she waited nine years for nothing. She only has to wait about nine days for something. Hon Paula Bennett: Will she be supporting free dental care for those aged over 65 with a SuperGold card? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I have to say that that has to wait until the announcement on 17 May, but if there are members over there who are of age and have got dental problems, come over and we ll give you health. Question time interrupted. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I seek leave to clarify the statement that I made in response to Mr Woodhouse s question.

7 3 May 2018 Business of the House 3439 Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In response to Mr Woodhouse s question, I indicated that I had informed the Business Committee of the Government s intention. I did not do that as part of the meeting s proceedings. If necessary, as I m required to do under the Standing Orders, I will do so. Question time resumed. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 2 Local Government 2. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader Green) to the Minister of Local Government: Has she received any advice, including the cost to ratepayers, on the five polls taking place on the establishment of Maori wards; if so, what was that advice? Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): No, I haven t received any specific advice about the cost of the five polls currently under way regarding Māori wards. Marama Davidson: Given the cost pressures on local government, is she concerned that the current polls seeking to overturn councils decisions on Māori wards are reportedly costing local councils up $140,000? Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Costs of stand-alone polls vary from council to council. I am aware anecdotally that within each local government area, the cost of holding such polls is a concern to them. Marama Davidson: Does the Minister agree with Local Government New Zealand, who in their open letter to her said that The discriminatory nature of these polls is not acceptable. and that they damage[s] race relations in our districts.? Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I am aware of that statement and they go on to add, Either the poll provision should apply to all wards or they should apply to none. The discriminatory nature of these polls is not acceptable. More so, that view is held by the five districts currently holding the polls, which is why they re campaigning very hard to ensure that people participate before 19 May. Marama Davidson: Does she agree that local elected members are perfectly able to make decisions on the establishment of Māori wards, just as they do with general wards, and that the current situation is a double standard for Māori representation? Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: That is certainly a strong view that is held by the sector representative group, Local Government New Zealand, and a range of councils who have advocated to local MPs, as well as myself as local government Minister. Marama Davidson: Is she concerned about the effect of these discriminatory polls that set up extra hurdles for Māori participation, given the UN has noted that Aotearoa has persistently low levels of Māori representation in local government? Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I m concerned that the poll drives the wrong conversation at a local level, where time has moved on, and actually the sentiment of local people has moved on because Māori are participating positively and contributing to well-being outcomes and they want to, which is why they seek Māori representation. Marama Davidson: Is she doing any work to change the law around Māori wards, given that the Labour Party voted for my member s bill in the 51 st Parliament, which would have removed this discriminatory provision, and, if not, why not? Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: It is correct to say that the Labour Party had a very clear position on this. As we work these issues forward for the coalition and confidence and

8 3440 Oral Questions 3 May 2018 supply Government, it s important that I provide all the information available so that we can ensure that the issue of Māori representation and contributing to positive outcomes in the region is not overshadowed by negative sentiment which seeks to divide views at a local level. This issue must be owned at a local level, and I m sure we will get to the right outcome in time. Question No. 3 Finance 3.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he accept that the Half year Economic and Fiscal Update shows $23.1 billion in surpluses over the next four years, additional borrowing of $10 billion in the next three years, and that the latest Crown financial statements for February 2018 show an additional $494 million is available; if so, why is the Government increasing taxes and not keeping its promise to reduce the cost of GP visits for all New Zealanders on 1 July this year? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first part of the question, no, because the member has chosen two different starting points, both of which he describes as the next three or four years. What I do accept is that we are running a strong economy and we ll deliver surpluses. In answer to the second part of the question, the final shape of the Government s revenue and expenditure will be revealed on 17 May. Hon Paul Goldsmith: If the more than $33 billion available to him is not enough to solve the problems that he sees, would $50 billion be enough, or how much more does he think he needs? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Oh, look, the Government has inherited a series of significant social and infrastructure deficits. They will take more than one Budget to resolve, and so I say to the member that had his party not left the health system in such a state of disrepair, had not underfunded education, and had not undermined other social services, perhaps the sum of money he said at the start might be enough. We ll see on 17 May. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Isn t it true that no matter how much tax hard-working New Zealanders pay, he will always want more? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I want is for New Zealanders all New Zealanders to pay their fair share. I want multinational companies to pay their fair share, unlike the previous Government who didn t seem to care about that. And I want all New Zealanders to know that their public services will be there for them when they need them, unlike the legacy the previous Government left. Hon Paul Goldsmith: What other promises does he intend to break? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have not broken any promises, but I do recall the previous Government campaigned rigorously on not increasing GST, and what s the first thing they did? They increased it. Andrew Bayly: Does he consider the planned fuel tax s increase to be significant enough to lead to higher living costs for families, because they will have to pay more for food and other household items? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I consider the proposed excise duty increase as one that will help support the provision of a modern transport system, and I probably feel the same way about that that Gerry Brownlee and Simon Bridges did when they increased it by 17c over a six-year period. Andrew Bayly: Is Freightways chief executive, Mark Troughear, wrong when he says new fuel taxes will force consumer prices up, and therefore New Zealanders wallets would not just be taking a hit at the pump if a fuel tax was introduced? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I believe the impact will be similar to what it was when the previous Government increased it by 17c over a six-year period. But what this

9 3 May 2018 Oral Questions 3441 Government has done is taken untargeted and poorly focused tax cuts and put that money back in the pockets of low- and middle-income families so they can afford the increases in costs of living. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether it s a fact, arising from his third answer, that in the nine years the last Government increased the fuel tax six times? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is, in fact, the case six times, up 17c and, amazingly, out of that, regional and rural New Zealand saw the quality of their roads decline. That s not going to happen under this Government. Question No. 4 Social Development 4. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by her statement that we as a state have to give people what they are entitled to, and so that is where our obligation lies.? Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister for Social Development) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: Yes. Hon Louise Upston: Given the State has obligations, does the Minister also believe that those receiving benefits have obligations, and that those that can work should be looking for work? Hon PEENI HENARE: On behalf of the Minister, yes. What we also want to make sure is that beneficiaries and all those in receipt of benefits from this Government receive their full and correct entitlement. In order to do that, we have some challenges, but we have a plan to fix it. Hon Louise Upston: Does the Minister believe that job seekers without children, who refuse work experience or training or recreational drug rehabilitation, should lose part of their benefit entitlement after four weeks of not meeting their obligations? Hon PEENI HENARE: On behalf of the Minister, the rules are very clear around the work-test sanctions for those who find themselves not available for work or breaking their job seeker obligations. But what we want to make sure of is that, first and foremost, we must work with these people to ensure that we address the reasons why they aren t meeting those job seeker obligations, and not simply take a punitive approach that will see them fall into more hardship. Hon Louise Upston: Is the Minister planning on removing any obligations in her significant welfare overhaul; if so, which ones? Hon PEENI HENARE: On behalf of the Minister, that member and the House will have to wait and see the work of the group that have been allocated this significant task. Hon Louise Upston: Has the Minister given any instructions to the Ministry of Social Development about prosecutions for taking what they re not entitled to and committing benefit fraud? Hon PEENI HENARE: On behalf of the Minister, I m unaware of any such advice, but I m sure if the member would like to submit that question in writing, she ll get the answer she s looking for. Hon Louise Upston: Does she believe people on benefit are entitled to more; and if yes, how much will benefits rise by on 1 July 2018? Hon PEENI HENARE: On behalf of the Minister, as I have mentioned earlier, fair and correct entitlement is what all New Zealanders are entitled to, not just beneficiaries, and can I make it clear to that member that one in five Kiwis actually receive support from this Government. So we want to make sure, first and foremost, they get the support and they know what their fair and correct entitlement is.

10 3442 Oral Questions 3 May 2018 Question No. 5 Transport 5. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister of Transport: What effect will the proposed $28 billion Auckland Transport Alignment Project have on congestion in Auckland? Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): The joint investment of $28 billion over the next decade will unlock Auckland s potential and drive economic growth and wealth creation. It is a game-changer for Auckland commuters and the first step in easing congestion that currently costs Auckland $1.3 billion every year. Projects such as the new rapid transit network, electrification of rail to Pukekohe, the third main rail line, Penlink, and Mill Road will make an incredible difference to commuters and businesses across Auckland. Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What effects will the rapid transit network have on congestion in Auckland? Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, the light rail line from the city to Māngere will have the capacity to move 11,000 people an hour each way. That s the equivalent of four lanes of motorway. It will connect the CBD with one of the country s biggest concentrations of jobs, at Māngere. Three-quarters of the people using this service will be commuters. The Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP) will also extend the northern busway and build the eastern busway from Panmure to Botany and a busway from Puhinui to the airport. The Auckland Unitary Plan allows 531,000 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! The answers are far too long, as they were yesterday. Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Does ATAP plan for future greenfields growth? Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The ATAP package prioritises projects which address the most critical growth challenges so that Auckland can, for once, get ahead of the growth. That s why the Government and Auckland Council are investing $500 million in Mill Road, are building Penlink, and will continue to widen the Southern Motorway and electrify the rail line to Pukekohe, investing $1.3 billion in major greenfield growth areas. Jami-Lee Ross: Can he confirm that the Mill Road and Penlink projects were already part of ATAP before he made his announcement recently and that he s taken to re-announcing policies that were already there in this portfolio, just like his other portfolio? Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I can confirm that Mill Road and Penlink were included in the old ATAP, but that plan had a $9.7 billion fiscal hole, and the public of Auckland had no idea when those roads would ever be built. Question No. 6 Trade and Export Growth 6. Hon TODD McCLAY (National Rotorua) to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: Does he believe the Government did all it could to avoid the imposition of tariffs by the United States on New Zealand steel and aluminium? Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): Yes. Hon Todd McClay: Why, then, have the EU, Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Argentina, Brazil, and Australia all received exemptions from US steel tariffs, yet he hasn t delivered one for New Zealand? Hon DAVID PARKER: We re in a similar position to Japan and a lot of other countries in that we have not secured an exemption as yet. We are continuing to seek one. The point of principle that lies behind the decisions that have been taken by the United States is hard to fathom. Hon Todd McClay: Why has he not travelled to Washington to make the case for New Zealand steel and aluminium producers to be exempt from US tariffs when the

11 3 May 2018 Oral Questions 3443 Australian trade Minister achieved a permanent exemption for Australian exporters following his visit? Hon DAVID PARKER: I m flattered that the member thinks that I could achieve an exemption by visiting when Prime Minister Abe visited the United States last week and was unable to get one. I, in fact, did offer to go some weeks ago, but I was advised by officials that it wouldn t make a difference, and I think Prime Minister Abe s proven the point. Hon Todd McClay: When he pleaded to be judged by results, not travel, in a Stuff article on 17 April titled Trade Minister pleads to be judged by results, not his travel, does he believe that a trip to Washington would have helped deliver a result for the New Zealand steel and aluminium industry, as it did for Australian exporters Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question s finished. Hon DAVID PARKER: I m very confident that the Government s trade-success to kilometres-travelled ratio will be better than National s. Hon Todd McClay: When will he deliver an exemption from these unfair US tariffs as the EU, Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Argentina, Brazil, and Australia have done, so that the New Zealand industry Mr SPEAKER: Order! Hon Todd McClay: and the public can judge him Mr SPEAKER: The question s finished. Can I remind the member. I know that well, in fact, I can t remember when the member came in and whether he has been in Opposition before, but when the member s finished his question, he should stop and not continue with an additional bit on the end. He had two legs; he s not allowed three. Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, we don t know. We re continuing to try. Already, the Prime Minister has written to the President of the US, I ve written to the US trade representative, I ve had a number of, and continuing, discussions with the US Ambassador to New Zealand, and I ve got another meeting coming too. At the instruction of the coalition Government, our trade officials at all levels have been doing their utmost. That includes Ambassador Groser, who will be known to the House as the former chief trade negotiator for New Zealand and a former trade Minister. I have been accepting the advice of officials as to the process to be taken, as well as giving guidance, and I think we have done all we can. Hon James Shaw: Is the reason why New Zealand doesn t have an exemption to the US steel tariffs because President Trump can t find New Zealand on a map? Mr SPEAKER: Order! I m not going to allow that question. Question No. 7 Health 7. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Is he satisfied with the Request for Proposals process for air ambulance helicopter services being run by the Ministry of Health? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I m satisfied with the request for proposal (RFP) process, which was set up in May 2016 by the previous National Government. I m satisfied that the process is driven by a desire to improve clinical outcomes for patients, but I have also been clear that I was not satisfied with early communication and engagement with local communities. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is he concerned that the 70-nautical-mile coverage set out in the RFP excludes large tourist areas of the southern South Island, and that this will be made worse by the absence of a base in Te Ānau? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: What I am committed to is the best clinical outcomes for patients. All parts of New Zealand will continue to receive air ambulance services.

12 3444 Oral Questions 3 May 2018 Hon Todd McClay: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is he concerned that the identified bases in the RFP excludes Rotorua, Taupō, and Te Ānau, and will he commit to asking his ministry to explicitly amend the tender document in the same way that he did for the Gisborne base? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I m not clear on the additional leg the member s added to the question, but I want people to know that this process is driven by concern to improve clinical outcomes for patients, and the process is still open. Hon Louise Upston: What does the Minister say to the thousands of people who have protested in the streets, sent s, and signed petitions concerned about the loss of life that would occur if the Taupō air ambulance service was removed, and also to the hard-working members of the Coromandel Rescue Helicopter Trust in Whitianga, who were today visited by the Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member s question has finished. Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The average age of the air ambulance fleet is 29 years old. That hasn t happened overnight. The previous Government ought to have put its money where its mouth was, but what I do want to say is that every district health board needs to have a sustainable, high quality ambulance service, no matter how big or small the population that they support. Angie Warren-Clark: How has the Minister personally intervened to improve engagement with local communities? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I m not a Minister who will shy away from difficult conversations. That s why I met with a group of regional mayors last month to listen to their concerns and reassure them about aspects of the process. Because those relationships are important to me, those conversations with the mayors are ongoing. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Would he be concerned to learn that at least one helicopter trust is already reporting a reluctance by traditional benefactors to donate to them due to the possibility that the service could be operated by an overseas provider, given that, if that happened, it would almost certainly result in a greater cost to the Crown? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I am concerned that we have a quality air ambulance service that delivers improved clinical outcomes for patients into the future. Hon Michael Woodhouse: In that case, can he commit to the people of regional New Zealand that the air ambulance service timeliness and quality will not be diminished in the new contracting framework? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The new contracting framework is precisely designed to improve clinical outcomes for patients. Question No. 8 Education 8. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What reports has he seen about the need for training in trades occupations? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I have seen reports that New Zealand is facing a significant shortfall of construction-related workers. It s expected that 56,000 additional construction-related workers will be needed over the next five years. The Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation, one of the industry s biggest training organisations, has said it s on track to produce around a third of that number. Clearly, we need to do a lot more to attract people into trade training, and support them through it. That is what this Government is committed to. Marja Lubeck: What action has the Government taken to date to make it easier for young people to train in the trades? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Our fees-free policy has already made choosing a trades qualification, either on-job or pre-job, much more affordable. Over half of the students

13 3 May 2018 Oral Questions 3445 and trainees who benefit from fees free are outside of the universities. Previously, employers and apprentices had to pay training and assessment fees to their industry training organisation. Now, for all eligible apprentices and programmes, those fees are covered under the fees-free policy for up to two years. We re reducing the cost burden for training for the future building and construction workforce. Marja Lubeck: Does he consider that the fees-free policy is sustainable? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, it s financially and educationally very sustainable. We cannot burden future generations with the cost of tertiary education or block access, when we need to incentivise them to get the right skills and training to succeed in a rapidly changing world. Fees fee has reduced student loan borrowing by up to $140 million in the first calendar quarter of this year, with 25,000 fewer students having to borrow for their fees. That includes thousands undertaking vocational courses at polytechnics and private training establishments. Question No. 9 Conservation 9. SARAH DOWIE (National Invercargill) to the Minister of Conservation: What are her current priorities for the conservation portfolio in the marine space? Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you. Marine protected areas are vital to protect important habitats and feeding areas for marine mammals, birds, fish, and invertebrates. So one of my priorities is to consider and make decisions on the recommendations of the South-East Marine Protection Forum, to better protect marine life and habitats on the South Canterbury and Otago coast, and I m determined to see real progress on reducing the bycatch of protected marine mammals and seabirds. I m committed to progressing Sea Change - Tai Timu Tai Pari in the Hauraki Gulf something which the previous National Government stalled and, along with Minister Nash, I m accelerating work to improve the protection of the endangered Hector s dolphin. Sarah Dowie: When will she be successful in her advocacy to her ministerial colleagues, given that she has been reported as saying that reducing bycatch rates are top of mind, as are overcoming the so-called technical difficulties, and putting a stop to the delay in the roll-out of cameras on commercial fishing vessels? Hon EUGENIE SAGE: As the member well knows, it s the Minister of Fisheries who is leading the work on cameras. But the Minister inherited a number of technical and administrative difficulties. We want cameras to work. Sarah Dowie: Does the Minister acknowledge that our endangered great white sharks require protection, and will she join with me to protect them and the safety of Stewart Islanders? Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The member for Invercargill, Liz Craig, has been very active in raising with me the concerns of Stewart Island residents [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think the member might want to start her answer again. Hon EUGENIE SAGE: I recognise the seriousness of the Stewart Islanders concerns about shark cage diving, but with respect to the member s bill, it is premature. I m waiting for the Court of Appeal s decision as to whether the current law allows the Department of Conservation to issue permits, and the extent to which the department can take public health and safety into account. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister describe how many times between 2014 and 2018, when this issue was seriously of concern down there in Stewart Island, the member asking the question made a submission to her department? Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: I ll listen to the member. Hon Paula Bennett: You certainly reflect on us not giving

14 3446 Oral Questions 3 May 2018 Mr SPEAKER: No, no I want you to make a point of order. Hon Paula Bennett: OK the Minister has no responsibility for what happened between 2014 and Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker? Mr SPEAKER: I ll hear the member. Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am asking the Minister for a record of submissions to her department on a very serious issue, and for that record that Minister has responsibility. Sarah Dowie: In that answer, will it reflect verbal submissions? Mr SPEAKER: Will it reflect what? Sarah Dowie: Verbal oral. Mr SPEAKER: Well, I don t think I m in a position to give an answer, but it seems to me that Ms Dowie has indicated that she d like the Minister to give an answer, which is not quite what Ms Bennett indicated. So I think I ll stick with the status quo and ask Eugenie Sage to give an answer, notwithstanding the point of order. Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I don t have that information with me, but I can provide it in writing subsequently. Sarah Dowie: Isn t the Minister s track record one of deference and stagnation, and when will she stand up to her ministerial coalition colleagues on behalf of threatened marine species? Hon EUGENIE SAGE: This Government has been in place for six months. On the issue of shark cage diving, which the member reportedly has concerns about, the issue arose in The previous Government had an opportunity to fix it and they didn t. Sarah Dowie: Point of order. Mr SPEAKER: A point of order. The member might want to explain to us what deference means. It s a new word to me. Sarah Dowie: Being slow. Mr SPEAKER: Being what? Sarah Dowie: Being slow. Mr SPEAKER: Oh, OK. It s all right we ve had lots of new words. Thank you to the member; she clearly understands that area better than I do. Sarah Dowie: I seek leave to introduce a member s bill in my name that would provide best practice regulations for shark cage diving activities to be set down as member s order of the day No. 1. Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that process? There is. Sarah Dowie: Has she discussed with her ministerial coalition colleagues a draft bill entitled the Marine Mammals Protection Seismic Surveying Bill? Hon EUGENIE SAGE: There has been some policy work done on formalising the currently voluntary process in the territorial sea around marine seismic surveys. I would note that in 2014 there was a suggestion, when the code of conduct was reviewed, to the previous Minister of Conservation Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Hon EUGENIE SAGE: well, actually, it was 2015 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! There s a point of order. Hon Michael Woodhouse: The member s question was very narrow; it has been answered. There is no need for the post-amble. Mr SPEAKER: The member knows well that the sole judge of whether a question has been answered or not is me, and it is not ever to be the subject of a point of order, and well, I m going to ask the member whether he was aware of those Speakers rulings. Hon Michael Woodhouse: I m very aware of the Speakers rulings. We take a different view, but that s fine.

15 3 May 2018 Oral Questions 3447 Mr SPEAKER: OK, well Sarah Dowie: Supplementary? Mr SPEAKER: Well, the Minister was interrupted. Had the Minister completed Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Can I just correct. The year was 2013, and, as part of the review of the Māui s dolphin threat management plan, the former Minister of Conservation agreed that a process should be initiated to regulate seismic surveying by incorporating the code of conduct in regulations made under the Marine Mammals Protection Act. What happened? Nothing. Sarah Dowie: What types of measures does she envisage would be included in the so-called marine mammals protection (seismic surveying) bill to enhance the protection of marine mammals? Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The member appears unaware that in the territorial sea there is a voluntary code of conduct. There is no formal permit process. If that was formalised, it would give certainty to the industry that they were doing legal activities and it would give certainty to the public that marine mammals were being protected. Question No. 10 Energy and Resources 10. JONATHAN YOUNG (National New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she stand by all her statements? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Yes, in the context in which they were given. Jonathan Young: When she stated on Q+A that she met with Methanex before their 12 April announcement and has now corrected that to say she didn t, and when answering questions on her behalf, her colleague Andrew Little said he met with them on 12 April but Methanex says he didn t, when will she admit to the people of New Zealand that she has dismally failed to consult the petrochemical sector? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I completely reject the premise of the questioner s question. My colleague Andrew Little said that Methanex were present at a meeting on 12 April that he attended in Taranaki, and that is correct. Jonathan Young: When she stated on Q+A that New Zealand s seven to 10 years of gas reserves is probably a pessimistic figure, why would the New Zealand public believe her, and what is her basis for making that statement? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Every year, there is the Energy in New Zealand publication, which puts out the forecast reserves of gas. The last quality assured forecast that we have is the 2017 figures. That is currently at around 10 years. The 2018 figures are currently being quality assured and will be released in the coming months. I have no reason to believe that they will be at the pessimistic end of the number that I used on Q+A. Jonathan Young: Will the Minister release the names of all of those people who attended the meeting on 12 April that Andrew Little was delegated to attend? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: A number of people attended that meeting. It was advertised and people were issued invites. If we re able to collate that information, we would have no problem releasing it, given that it was a public meeting. I will need to consult with my colleague to see whether it is possible to collate that information. Question No. 11 Pike River Re-entry 11. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour Christchurch Central) to the Minister responsible for Pike River Re-entry: What progress has been made on the Pike River re-entry project? Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister responsible for Pike River Re-entry): I m very pleased to convey yet more good news from this Government to the House. Two

16 3448 Oral Questions 3 May 2018 weeks ago, I visited the mine site and, with family representatives, personally entered the mine portal. This week, technical experts, along with family representatives, have been meeting in Greymouth to work on a draft plan for re-entry into the Pike River drift. This meeting has been a positive experience and good progress is being made. I expect the agency s recommendation on a proposed approach to re-entry will be presented to me in six to eight weeks time. Dr Duncan Webb: What is the time line for the drift re-entry project from here? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Once I receive the agency s recommendation, I will consider their proposed approach, and, if I believe this is sound and safe and subject to the advice I get from my independent adviser I will approve it for more detailed planning. To some extent, re-entry will be season dependent, because of barometric pressures. All things going well, the re-entry process could be able to start before the end of the year. Dr Duncan Webb: How have the Pike River families been involved in this process? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The coalition Government has been clear about the genuine involvement of the Pike River families in this project. As Bernie Monk stated yesterday, hand on heart, I can t see why it s taken eight years to get to this stage that we ve done in four days. It is positive, after years of the previous Government saying it could not be done, that it turns out it can be done, can be done safely, and with the full blessing of the families involved. Question No. 12 Regional Economic Development 12. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Does he stand by all of his statements in regards to the Provincial Growth Fund; if so, will he guarantee that none of the projects funded will have outcomes considered fanciful? Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): To the first part of the question, yes; and in so far as the word fanciful is used, it s been misapplied in a form that s inversely related to my ministerial temperament. Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Does it comply with the Standing Orders to answer in riddles? Mr SPEAKER: And it s part of the responsibility of the Opposition to solve them. Hon Paul Goldsmith: When he said last week, I realise that we have the Westminster system. After the next election, if I don t get what I want, we re going to have the Axminister system., who specifically was he threatening? Hon SHANE JONES: In the life of the first citizen of the provinces, there is great hyperbole and theatrical language from time to time. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think threatening officials is a laughing matter? Hon SHANE JONES: Both officials and members of the House are aware of how seriously I take my role as New Zealand s first citizen of the provinces. So, from time to time, the member is reading far too much into the language of a colourful, hardworking, rhetorical advocate. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does the Minister think that the Cabinet Manual, specifically paragraph 3.22(f), which says, Ministers should exercise a professional approach and good judgement in their interactions with officials. Ministers must respect the political neutrality of the public service, applies to him? Hon SHANE JONES: In deference to the Cabinet Manual, I can assure you, unlike other parts of my life, I express and practise great fidelity. Hon Paul Goldsmith: When he said, in relation to the Wairoa mayor, I felt pretty stink that I, as the provincial champion, couldn t even deliver for him., how much did he think the responsibility for the lack of delivery lay with him?

17 3 May 2018 Oral Questions 3449 Hon SHANE JONES: When I met with the Mayor of Wairoa, he described me as the first Minister since the days of Helen Clark to have ever shown that quality of affection and attention to Wairoa. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he aware that there is a fine line between being a bit of a character and being a joke, and which side of the line is he on? Hon SHANE JONES: I could not describe it better than the New Zealand Herald, who have described me as part jester, part genius, and in 2020 they ll see the latter and not the former. NGĀTI TAMAOHO CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILL Second Reading Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. This bill gives effect to a deed of settlement between the Crown and Ngāti Tamaoho, signed at Mangatangi Marae on 30 April The deed of settlement settles all the remaining historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of Ngāti Tamaoho. Ngāti Tamaoho is one of the Waikato-Tainui - affiliated Waiohua groups, located within Tāmaki-makau-rau. Their interests are centred on the Manukau Harbour and extend to include the Franklin District, Hunua Ranges, Āwhitu Peninsula, Waikato wetlands, and central Auckland. I acknowledge the work of the Ngāti Tamaoho negotiators and the governance entity, the Ngāti Tamaoho Trust Board. I also acknowledge the previous Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson; Government agencies; and local authorities for their contributions to the bill. I also thank the chair and members of the Māori Affairs Committee, which has done an excellent job in progressing this bill. The proposed bill gives effect to those elements of the deed which require statute. The bill was referred to the committee on 6 July The committee received two written submissions, both in support of the bill one from Ngāti Tamaoho Trust and the other from the Auckland Council. This was the first time in the Treaty settlement process that no submission in opposition to a settlement bill was received. Consequently, there was no requirement for public hearings to be held. The committee s commentary on the bill focuses on the settlement matters discussed during consideration of the bill, and, after careful consideration, the committee has recommended the bill proceed with two minor technical amendments. This second reading brings us closer to the concluding stage of settling the historical claims of Ngāti Tamaoho. I intend to talk in more detail in the third reading when we fully celebrate this settlement. Until then, I commend this bill to the House. NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā rā koutou nā e tō tātou matua tipuna. Tēnei te mihi o ngā uri o Tainui waka Ngāti Tamaoho, te Maungaroa Mauka, Waikato Awa. E ngā iwi o Ngāti Tamaoho tū mai ngā marae o Whātapaka, Mangatangi, Ngā Hau e Whā. Nau mai haere mai o te Whare Pāremata. E mihi nei, e tangi nei koutou ngā taoka whakahirahira koutou e tūmanako ake nei, koutou e hāpai nei, ka mihi, ka mihi, rātou ki a rātou, tātou ki a tātou, tīhei mauriora. [Greetings to you, our ancestor. This is the greeting of the descendants of the Tainui Canoe, Ngāti Tamaoho of Maungaroa Mountain, of the Waikato River. The people of Ngāti Tamaoho, may your marae of Whātapaka, Mangatangi, and Ngā Hau e Whā continue to stand strong. Welcome to this House of Parliament. I greet and lament those long departed special people who had such hopes and furthered the cause; I acknowledge you and say let us leave the deceased to the deceased and us to ourselves, let there be life.]

18 3450 Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill 3 May 2018 It is indeed my honour to be able to stand and speak in the second reading of the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill. I had the pleasure as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee in the 51 st Parliament to consider this bill in the first stages. I just want to acknowledge the iwi of Ngāti Tamaoho and also their surrounding iwi, because of the incredible honour that they actually gave each other and the mana, particularly when we look at the history of this particular Treaty settlement. When you observe the conduct of an iwi that has been labelled rebels through their history, and when you hear of the incredible issues that came out of that, and coming to the Māori Affairs Committee to submit that there is something that really does make an important contribution to the way that these Treaty settlements are actually developed and have developed and the processes involved. Ngāti Tamaoho has a proud history of working alongside their whanaunga and with the advent of the arrival of the Pākehā as the new settlers. I think the important thing, though, is that Ngāti Tamaoho actually had their lands taken from them, and these lands were some of the most fertile and some of the best coastal lands, actually, in New Zealand. So when we look at this, this bill now and particularly getting to this particular stage of the second reading is a huge step forward. It ensures the future of the iwi where all of that land and taonga were actually cruelly taken in the 1860s. During the course of the hearings, Ngāti Tamaoho also expressed their frustrations with the length of time it took to get to that particular part of the settlement. Having gone through the settlement process during my own iwi s processes and development, that is indeed a frustration that is very concerning moving through, but at least we got to this point. That said, in this particular one, and particularly the area, or rohe, of Ngāti Tamaoho, the complexities here and particularly when we look at situations like every other Treaty settlement are the overlapping claims. So navigating that by the Crown for example, what came out of the submissions was the situation with Te Ākitai Waiōhua and then Ngāti Te Ata, the whanaunga iwi of Ngāti Tamaoho, who actually took some real issues with the aspects of the settlement, particularly in regards to overlapping claims. Equally, there are the recent issues raised by Ngāti Tamaoho to the Māori Affairs Committee as well, which was over the Papakura Defence Force lands. This really did highlight the complexity that I ve just referred to in the delaying of the settlement itself. Often, the Crown can be left with Solomon s choice when it comes to who has mana over what in which area. Thus, whilst the concerns of Ngāti Tamaoho are acknowledged, what came out of it is that the use of tikanga and the meetings between those whanaunga iwi what came out of it was a joint redress as the end result. I really do acknowledge the Ngāti Tamaoho rangatira that are here in the House today. In saying that, particularly with those overlapping claims and the cultural redress, I urge you to continue using those tikanga-based processes whanaungatanga, particularly to ensure that that continues around those redress properties. We received and considered two submissions. One was from the Ngāti Tamaoho Trust, and the other from the Auckland Council keeping in mind, too, that both of those submissions actually supported the bill. But there were a number of critical features with this particular settlement. The commercial redress has been of some concern with Ngāti Tamaoho their settlement properties, both shared and exclusive, which gave the iwi access to most of the lucrative real estate market in New Zealand. So these lease-back properties the former Ōtara police station, the Great South Road commercial property, and the school sites will enable a regular income to accrue to Tamaoho as they manage the growth of their pūtea. The other part, too, is that looking at other cultural redress properties in this particular settlement Clarks Creek, Karaka, and Waitete Pā. Those particular redress