Latest news with #DAVIDSEYMOUR
Scoop
19 hours ago
- Business
- Scoop
Sitting Date: 24 June 2025 (continued On Wednesday, 25 June 2025)
Monday, 30 June 2025, 7:58 am Press Release: Hansard ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Prime Minister 1. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Acting Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Acting Prime Minister): Yes. In particular, I stand by the Government's actions to provide certainty to the energy sector by repealing the ban on oil and gas exploration, and being prepared to co-invest in exploration projects. In many ways, the latter policy is one a Government wishes it didn't have to have. However, it's been made necessary by the flagrant, reckless— SPEAKER: No, that's enough. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —irresponsible ban under the previous Government. SPEAKER: Let's make it very clear that Ministers answering questions who today choose to have a flick at the Opposition in the answer to that question will be leaving the House. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Mark Mitchell that working Kiwis aren't fundamentally feeling the economic recovery in this really tough economy? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I believe that New Zealanders are facing challenging economic times. However, the trajectory is one of continual improvement. When you have a Government that borrows $115 billion and leaves nothing to show for it except for inflation and high interest rates, the recovery takes some time. But since this Government has been in office, we have seen inflation fall from 5.6 percent down to 2.5 percent. We've seen the official cash rate fall from 5.25 down to 3.5. We are seeing people's mortgages come down, we're seeing their rents come down, and we're seeing their inflation come down, and that is what an economic recovery looks like. SPEAKER: Let me also remind members that question time is for questions to be asked and questions to be answered, not speeches made. So we'll be curtailing those question answers if that sort of practice continues. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So is it his view that the cost of living crisis is over for New Zealand families? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The cost of living crisis is abating with every positive move taken by this Government. But the fact is that you can't be the guy that dug the hole and then complain it's a long way to dig out of it. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does he think it isn't the Government's job to figure out whether its policies are delivering for Kiwi families, as he indicated yesterday, given both Nicola Willis and the IRD haven't been able to find a single family that's receiving the full $250 a fortnight this Government promised them? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: And I asked the member: has he found anyone sitting behind him who still supports him? SPEAKER: I think the Acting Prime Minister could do a little bit better than that. And, once again, it's attacking the Opposition, which is not the form that's acceptable under Standing Orders. The member's a very articulate man, I'm sure he can do better than he has. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, it's very simple: the member has a supposition in his question which misrepresents my position. I reject it. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Which part of his position is being misrepresented? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, unfortunately, the Speaker is asking me to make shorter answers, so I won't be able to list them all. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker— SPEAKER: No— Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —that cannot be a legitimate answer. SPEAKER: No—thank you. Good. You can do a little better than that. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, it's too long and now too short. The member is misrepresenting my position by saying that I somehow am not concerned about the welfare of New Zealanders or evaluating the effectiveness of the Government's policies. I can tell him that we are deeply concerned about the welfare of New Zealanders and deeply concerned about the effectiveness of our policies. The good news is that those policies are very effective and it brings us great joy to show concern in them. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he accept the Government's decision to cut early childhood education subsidies in real terms will increase fees for Kiwi parents? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: That is a nonsense. We have increased the amount of money that goes into early childhood education by a very similar amount as it's been increased year on year, over the last decade. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How is increasing early childhood education subsidies by 0.5 percent when inflation is running at 2.5 percent not a real-terms funding cut? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, people may recall not so long ago when inflation was running at 7.3 percent. And did that member, as Minister of Education, increase the funding by 7.3 percent? No, he did not. New Zealanders up and down this country were on the treadmill trying to keep up with the out of control inflation that these turkeys foisted on them. SPEAKER: No—now hang on. No. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise for that last remark. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I withdraw and apologise. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder if now that he's got that out of his system, he could perhaps address the question that I asked him, which is how increasing early childhood education subsidies, that this Government has decided to do, by 0.5 percent when inflation during that time is running at 2.5 percent is not a real-terms funding cut. Because, in his previous answer, he indicated that they haven't cut the funding, when they have. SPEAKER: No, no, you've got to think carefully. I listened to this because of the expectation around questions about how the exchange would run. So the question was, as you said, asked. The member then spoke about the overall increase that had been put in place. It was established, and previous Speakers have established—not actually from my political persuasion; from another—it is appropriate to reflect on a previous Government's performance, which I think is what he's done. And I don't think it's reasonable to say he's got to answer more. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he accept the Government's order to hike public transport costs will drive up bus fares by as much as 50 percent from next week? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The Government has made no such order. Question No. 2—Finance 2. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) to the Minister of Finance: What is the Depositor Compensation Scheme and when does it start? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Starting next week, 1 July, a new scheme will protect New Zealanders' deposits at banks, as well as at building societies, credit unions, and finance companies who take retail deposits. The Depositor Compensation Scheme will guarantee a person's deposits of up to $100,000 per institution in the unlikely event of a failure. The implementation of the scheme, which has been many years in the making, will give Kiwis peace of mind that if something were to go wrong at the institution they have entrusted their money to, that money will be safe. Dana Kirkpatrick: What types of accounts will be covered? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Depositor Compensation Scheme covers money held in standard banking products like transaction accounts, savings accounts, and term deposits. The scheme starts automatically next week, and people don't have to do anything to be covered. People should check on their bank, building society, credit union, or finance company website, or give them a call, to see exactly what is protected by the scheme if they are unsure. Dana Kirkpatrick: How is the scheme funded and administered? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Depositor Compensation Scheme will be levy-funded. Banks, building societies, credit unions, and finance companies will pay the levy, based on the riskiness of their institution and the total deposits they hold that are covered by the scheme. The levies collected from institutions will build up over time in a fund so that money is available if compensation needs to be made— Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Desperate today that you're having to talk about a Labour scheme. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has just said that it is "desperate" for me to be talking about a scheme which will guarantee New Zealanders' deposits, and I would put to them that actually that is meaningful to everyday New Zealanders, and possibly more meaningful than the semantic games he prefers to play in question time. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Good. We'll take the—we'll stick to the rules, sorry. Dana Kirkpatrick. Dana Kirkpatrick: Why is the scheme being introduced? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It turns out that New Zealanders are interested in their financial security and whether or not the savings that they have can be guaranteed. If a bank looks like it could be in trouble, people typically want to take their money out of it. Such withdrawals can trigger a whole series of unpleasant events in the financial sector and across the economy. Depositor protection gives people confidence that their deposits are not at risk and is international best practice. New Zealand is now getting in line with that best practice. In addition, and importantly, I expect the scheme will improve competition because New Zealanders are more likely to consider switching if they know their deposit will be protected. New Zealanders can be assured: the guarantee exists whether or not you're with one of the "big four" banks or you are with a credit union, a building society, another financial service provider. I think this is important for those who may have been reluctant to switch their banking services due to a sense that their funds may not be secure. The Depositor Compensation Scheme, I hope, will be a spur for greater competition in our financial sector. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When was the scheme referenced in the Minister's answers passed into law and who was the Minister of Finance at the time? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I welcome this turning-around of events, in which me talking about the scheme was initially "desperate" and a terrible thing to do, and it's now something the Leader of the Opposition wishes to take credit for. Well, that is "Flip-flop Hipkins" for ya. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a pretty straight question. The Minister was asked when the scheme was passed into law and who the Minister of Finance was. It wasn't an opportunity to attack the Opposition; it was an opportunity to answer the question. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Some of you will be leaving in bulk if you interrupt a point of order. Make your point of order again so that those who were talking through it can hear it. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: The question was very simple: when was the scheme passed into law and who was the Minister of Finance at the time? SPEAKER: Yes, I heard the question. We'll just get a straightforward answer. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I think that the Leader of the Opposition already knows the answer to that question, but I'm very happy to spoon-feed him, and I'd suggest he probably needs a bit more of it. It was introduced by the previous finance Minister Grant Robertson, and has the rare attribute that it was actually one thing he did that was helpful. But unfortunately, it doesn't out-balance the absolute mess he left the New Zealand economy in, which that member aided and abetted at every step. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: No, there are several members on the front bench of the Opposition who have put themselves in danger of leaving early this afternoon—not particularly looking at anybody, but just scanning the entire front bench. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The ruling that you have just made right now is very much the same as the ruling you made regarding Ministers at the very beginning of question time. If you stuck with the first ruling, you probably wouldn't have needed to make the second. SPEAKER: Thank you very much for your advice. I look forward to you putting that in writing and sending it to the Standing Orders Committee so that they can record the wisdom of the Rt Hon Christopher Hipkins. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister: is she telling us that it's taken 19 long months for Mr Hipkins to find something commendable about Grant Robertson's time? SPEAKER: No, no, no—that's not a question that the Minister can answer, much as she may want to. Moving now to—[Interruption]. Urgency—urgency just turns the place upside down. Question No. 3—Minister for Oceans and Fisheries 3. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: Does he stand by his statement, "The bottom trawling techniques that are pursued by the New Zealand fishing industry are relatively harmless"; if so, are current levels of bycatch acceptable? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: A range of management measures are in place to manage fisheries by-catch while enabling sustainable utilisation of fisheries resources. We continue to monitor the effects of fishing and assess whether additional management measures are necessary. The Government works in a number of ways to prevent and minimise by-catch from fishing. This includes restrictions on fishing in areas which overlap with particular habitats, as well as longer-term plans to prevent and minimise captures. Hon Marama Davidson: Is it harmless that nearly 1,000 seabirds were captured by commercial fisheries in the first three months of this year? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that the seabird capture is down dramatically because of changed methods of fishing, but it's an ongoing matter which crosses, of course, a whole lot of countries, not just New Zealand, and we're in international discussions to ensure that we're following best practice to minimise that occurrence. Hon Marama Davidson: Does he think it's hypocritical that last year Aotearoa pledged $16 million to the Global Fund for Coral Reefs, yet this year we've had the largest coral by-catch event in 15 years, dredging up to six tonnes of ancient coral from the sea floor? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No such pledge was made by any such country as named by that questioner. Tākuta Ferris: Are you sure? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, I am positive. Unlike you, you dickhead. Hon Marama Davidson: OK. Does he have confidence in the sustainable management of fisheries when 60 percent of fish stocks being managed are not assessed, and, of the remaining stocks, 15 percent are not being managed sustainably? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I wonder if the member can ask that question again because there was interruption on my right. Hon Marama Davidson: Does he have confidence in the—[Interruption] SPEAKER: No, no. Hang on, the House will be quiet while a question is asked. Hon Marama Davidson: Does he have confidence in the sustainable management of fisheries when 60 percent of fish stocks being managed are not assessed, and, of the remaining stocks, 15 percent are not being managed sustainably? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, first of all, both those figures are totally incorrect. Hon Marama Davidson: Will he stand with the 80 percent of New Zealanders who agree that the Government should ban bottom trawling on sea mounts and protect these biodiversity hot spots? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The bottom trawling is an ongoing consideration by the New Zealand Government. Of course, the procedures have dramatically improved, but there are some stock which cannot be caught any other way—orange roughy happens to be one of them at certain parts of the country—so that is why it's an ongoing discussion, ensuring that we follow best practice. Hon Marama Davidson: Will he stop insisting that bottom trawling is harmless when clearly the indiscriminate method is causing wide-scale death and destruction of our native species and ecosystems? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, we reject the premise of that question. Again, it is stated on assumptions which have not been proven and are not of the best and latest science that we have available to us. Tākuta Ferris: Point of order. I've witnessed many times in this House disparaging comments being made between sides, and I'm quite sure that being called a "dickhead" would fall in line with that tikanga of the House, we might say, Mr Speaker. So if Mr Peters wants to call me a dickhead across the alleyway here, I think that we should consider something for him. SPEAKER: Well, that's an interesting point of order. Until the member brought it up, I had no idea that that was the allegation being made against him. But if he has obviously found it offensive, I'd ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise. Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, he hasn't found it offensive, has he? SPEAKER: No, no, hang on. It's not something— Rt Hon Winston Peters: He did not raise the matter of offence. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker— SPEAKER: Wait on, wait on, hang on. We're about to get terribly excited. Tākuta Ferris: I take personal offence to the comments made by Mr Peters over here calling me a dickhead. SPEAKER: On their basis, I ask the Minister to withdraw the comment. Rt Hon Winston Peters: On the basis that when I was trying to get my thoughts together on the answer to Marama Davidson's questions, he was interrupting me. I apologise for calling him what I said he was. SPEAKER: Thank you. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Is that now an acceptable way of withdrawing and apologising? Because the House will have a lot of fun if that's the case. SPEAKER: Just a moment. While there was a point of order being taken by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, there was a lot of noise, and I did not hear everything that he said. I heard the last part, which was "on that basis, I apologise". So— Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. SPEAKER: Well, hang on, I'll tell you what I'm doing to do. I'm not going to take this any further. I'm going to review the Hansard and come back to the House tomorrow. Simplest way through it. Hon David Seymour: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wonder if you might also reflect on your earlier rulings with relation to political motifs on T-shirts and badges in relation to anything you may have seen in the last few minutes. SPEAKER: Yes, I certainly will. Question No. 4—Housing 4. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Housing: How many New Zealanders are homeless now, compared to when the Government was elected? Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing): Any response to that question is influenced by how I define homelessness, but I'll use two data sets for the purposes of this question. If you mean those households living in emergency housing, in October 2023, there were 3,402 households living in emergency housing; in May 2025, there were 510, a drop of circa 3,000 households. If I use those persons living without shelter, in Census 2023, as we know, there were 4,965, quite a bit more than Census 2018—3,624—and, today, there's no formal comparative figure to the census stats. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Why, when front-line providers are telling him consistently that his policies have contributed to unprecedented increases in homelessness, does he refuse to admit that homelessness has increased under his watch? Hon TAMA POTAKA: Following up from earlier discussions and kōrero between the member and myself at the scrutiny session, there are a range of observations; there are a range of views as to the causes and the contributors to emergency housing. There is not one single cause or reason why people become homeless, live without shelter, or end up in emergency housing. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Who are the "some providers" that he says don't link rising homelessness to his policies? Hon TAMA POTAKA: May I refer to the Homelessness Insights report, which I'm sure the member has had access to and pored over vigorously in the last few weeks. That report states that there may be—from the providers, that may be attributable to changes, but there are also a range of cost of living, health, drug addiction, and a whole range of other factors that can contribute to homelessness. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Why did he claim that the census was the "single source of truth" when it came to measuring homelessness, when the census was abolished by this Government the very next day? Hon TAMA POTAKA: It has been the single formed source of truth for these numbers. However, we continue to seek and have proffered to us and furnished to us a range of reports, including the Homelessness Insights report, which is due shortly. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Will he, now that the census will be abolished by this Government, finally listen to the front-line providers who have told him that his policies have made homelessness "the worst it's been in living memory." Hon TAMA POTAKA: As I've said earlier, there are a range of observations and views not just from providers but also from iwi and Māori organisations like the Ōwhata 2B and 7D trust, which I recently attended to celebrate the opening of various housing developments that they had, and commit to funding for further housing that they can build and go to. There is no one conclusive view right now across those various sources of information. Hon Nicola Willis: Has the Minister considered pledging, as previous Ministers have, to shelter all homeless people within four weeks of coming to office, or does he judge that there are often complex reasons for people's homelessness that Jacinda Ardern should have realised before she made that broken pledge? SPEAKER: Look, how many times have I warned about that? I'm telling the Minister that's the last time this week, next week, the rest of the Parliament that a question is used to attack the Opposition. Unacceptable. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Does he agree with Dr Ang Jury from Women's Refuge, who said, "The refuges are having a huge amount of difficulty getting emergency housing support for our clients. It used to be really easy to access, to be honest, if someone arrived at a Work and Income office with a Refuge advocate then it was a done deal. But it's not like that any more"; if not, why not? Hon TAMA POTAKA: The allegations and assertions that the member made last week in scrutiny in relation to these related matters are serious, and as a result I have called the member to ask for further evidence and attribution around the claims that were made at scrutiny week. I'm still awaiting specific info—[Interruption] SPEAKER: No, quiet down. Hon TAMA POTAKA: —because Te Manatū Whakahiato Ora, the Ministry of Social Development, has told me as late as this afternoon that there is no evidence to show that emergency housing has been declined to anyone on the basis that they contributed to their housing need as a result of being a domestic violence victim, and I still await that specific information. Question No. 5—Acting Prime Minister TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Acting Prime Minister and asks: does he stand by— SPEAKER: Hang on—hang on. TODD STEPHENSON: —all of his Government's statements and actions? SPEAKER: No, wait—wait. Just a minute. Questions have to be heard in silence. Please ask the question again. 5. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) to the Acting Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Acting Prime Minister): Yes. In particular, I stand by the Government's announcement welcoming the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission's National Infrastructure Plan. It's a tribute to members of the Government, including Chris Bishop, also people like Simon Court, who are addressing a major problem with our infrastructure planning, which can be summed up as the political cycle being far too short compared with the project cycle. When Governments change and priorities change, major projects stop and start, capacity is built up and built down, and not enough gets done at a competitive price. This plan will deliver long-term infrastructure planning, smarter funding and financing, efficient delivery of critical projects, and better maintenance of assets so that all New Zealanders can get around and get homes more affordably, at better quality. Todd Stephenson: What announcements has the Government made about access to new medicines? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, many. This Government has taken the view that if something is good for New Zealanders and there is no reason to prevent them having it, then they should have it. We've done it with pseudoephedrine; we've done it with melatonin. We also take the view that funding medicines is a critical priority for any Government. And not only did we fill in a major fiscal hole to the tune of $1.776 billion upon taking office; we added another $604 million, which has allowed dozens of new medicines to help over 200,000 New Zealanders get access to new medication. And then we extended the prescription time frame to 12 months for some of the most important things that people need to get for their health. Altogether, this Government has a fantastic record, allowing Kiwis to access medicines better. Todd Stephenson: What announcements has the Government made about GP funding? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, they say that a stitch in time saves nine. Getting to the doctor is not only critical to health but it has critical benefits to the rest of the healthcare system—ensuring, for example, that emergency departments are not clogged up. So I'm so proud to be part of a Government where our health Minister, Simeon Brown, has just announced a 13.89 percent uplift in GP funding so that people are more likely to get into their GP, taking pressure off the hospitals and improving New Zealanders' health. Todd Stephenson: Does the Acting Prime Minister agree with the following statements in relation to the Regulatory Standards Bill: "principles that pretty much anyone should support" and "Those principles are incontrovertible. … as my colleague Lianne Dalziel said, [they] are the basis on which [any] legal system rests"? SPEAKER: No, that's not something you can make any comment on whatsoever. So sit down and have another go at the question. Todd Stephenson: Does the Acting Prime Minister agree with any statements that he's recently seen in relation to the Regulatory Standards Bill? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, I do, as a matter of fact. I have seen statements that say the principles in the Regulatory Standards Bill are something that anybody should agree with and, in fact, are incontrovertible. Hon Peeni Henare: Sounds like David Seymour's playing a victim. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: And it may interest people across the other side of the House, like Peeni Henare, to know that those statements were not made by me. They were made by a very wise man, a lawyer, and a member of the Labour Party when it had some intellectual heft. SPEAKER: No. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Those statements were made to this House by Charles Chauvel. SPEAKER: Good, OK. Well, while I'm tempted to pull the member up for misleading the House, I want to make it very clear that you cannot use supplementary questions to amount any kind of attack on the Opposition. Hon Chris Bishop: That wasn't an attack—no, it was praising him. SPEAKER: And you might think that's crazy, but, unfortunately, I know the man. Question No. 6—Statistics 6. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Matarau—Te Pāti Māori ) to the Minister of Statistics: How will he ensure that scrapping the five-yearly Census will not magnify the problem of under-counting Māori and Pasifika populations? Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Statistics): We're not scrapping the census. We're adopting a new approach that first uses administrative data already collected by the Government. This will then be supported by smaller annual surveys and targeted data collection, particularly for underrepresented communities. This new approach builds on successful models previously used by Stats New Zealand, where admin data has helped ensure that Māori and Pacific population undercounting is reduced. It also gives us the opportunity to continue working with these communities on an ongoing basis to develop tailored solutions and ensure Māori and Pacific populations are being accurately represented in data collection. Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: How will the Minister uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Māori data sovereignty under the data collection framework that is set to replace the census? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: In 2019, Stats New Zealand entered into an arrangement, the Mana Ōrite arrangement, with the Data Iwi Leaders Group, which describes the umbrella and the activities that Stats New Zealand will have in their engagement with iwi Māori and how they'll take those considerations into account. Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What is his Government's commitment to closing the Māori data gap, if any? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We do have commitment to closing that gap. We're working constructively with Te Kāhui Raraunga and seeking their advice and counsel as to how we can do a better job representing underrepresented populations in the data sets. Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: How will the Government be able to identify communities of need when administrative data will only be collected from those who engage with the Government services and our most marginalised people do not engage with these services? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Thank you. That's exactly why the community attribute surveys, which will encompass roughly 3 to 5 percent of the population with their annual surveys and the targeted surveys will be looking to go out and seek information from those underrepresented populations. Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What impact will the scrapping of the census have on the revitalisation of te reo Māori? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I've already commented that the census is not being scrapped, that we're taking a new approach, but what's also true is that we are aware that te reo Māori is a variable that we need to pay attention to. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister address the earlier question from the questioner, which was where in the Treaty of Waitangi does it reference the Māori population being counted? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Under the wider Mana Ōrite agreement, how Stats New Zealand engages with iwi Māori around Treaty of Waitangi discussions and issues are covered. Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Will the Minister commit therefore to fully funding the Māori data governance model laid out by Te Kāhui Raraunga to close the Māori data gap, to accurately identify communities of need, and to uphold Māori data sovereignty? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We're working with Te Kāhui Raraunga as we speak, and I'm encouraged by the constructive suggestions that they are actually bringing to that consultation. Question No. 7—Infrastructure 7. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Minister for Infrastructure: What recent reports has he seen on New Zealand's infrastructure sector? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister for Infrastructure): Today, the Infrastructure Commission released the draft National Infrastructure Plan. It's an independent view on the current state of our system, what we need in the future, and the projects and policy reforms that will bridge this gap in the most effective and value-for-money way. It's been developed independently by the Infrastructure Commission. As I said this morning launching the plan, this is not the coalition Government's infrastructure plan; it's New Zealand's plan. Rima Nakhle: Why is having a national infrastructure plan important? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, one of the things that I'm sure all members will have heard over the years is what we really need in this country is a long-term plan that transcends political cycles. Hon Ginny Andersen: That someone doesn't cancel. Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The Government—are you not in favour of that? Hon Ginny Andersen: Not cancelling it, no. Fifteen-thousand construction workers— Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh righty-o, OK. SPEAKER: Hang on, hang on. Just answer the question. Don't engage with comments across the House. Those who are commenting across the House risk leaving the House early. Hon CHRIS BISHOP: One of the points the Infrastructure Commission makes in the draft plan is that our system is not performing well. There has been near systemic neglect of the underlying institutional settings and policy frameworks over successive Governments. Contrary to popular perception, the Government spends a lot on infrastructure. We're in the top 10 percent in the OECD for investment, but the bottom 10 percent when it comes to getting quality and bang for buck from spending. So there are a range of very sensible recommendations in the report that the Government looks forward to advancing. Rima Nakhle: How will the National Infrastructure Plan help build consensus on infrastructure? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The plan is a conversation starter and it's a draft plan, but it's built on robust evidence, data, and analysis. It's not as simple as everyone getting into a room and agreeing with each other. We need strong systems and institutions, robust investment frameworks, high-quality evidence, and advocacy for policies and projects from a better-informed public. As part of the Government's response to the plan, I will be engaging with other political parties in Parliament—that work has already started. I'm also intending to ask the Business Committee to hold a special parliamentary debate on the plan next year. We need to move away from the rhetoric that we need greater bipartisanship on all projects and instead build consensus on the idea that Governments of all flavours should use best practice to select, fund and finance, deliver, and look after our infrastructure. Rima Nakhle: What does the plan recommend? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I'm encouraging all members to read the plan. It makes 19 important recommendations—in draft form. Many of these recommendations align with work the Government has under way—for example, making better use of pricing and user charging to fund infrastructure investment; adopting spatial planning, which I know the previous Government did a lot of work on through the resource management reforms; relaxing land-use restrictions, which again I note the previous Government did some work on; reforming our transport funding system; prioritising infrastructure through the resource management system; and drastically improving asset management, which has been a 30-year problem for New Zealand. There are serious recommendations in this report for a serious country and I'm looking forward to advancing these reforms. Simon Court: Has the Minister seen reports that three consortia have qualified to bid for the Northern Corridor public-private partnership (PPP), and what does it say about the sector's confidence in this Government's refreshed approach to PPP procurement? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, indeed I have seen those reports, largely because I released it. We have three consortia bidding for the Northland Expressway—very important project—that will unlock the economic potential of Northland. It's very heartening to see that all three of the international consortia bidding had representatives at the New Zealand Infrastructure Investment Summit earlier in the year. I think that would have given them greater confidence to participate in this very important project. Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment 8. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by statements made on her behalf that high inflation and high interest rates were main factors in job losses in the construction sector? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes. Unfortunately, the economic conditions that we inherited, including high inflation and high interest rates, created the environment for increasing unemployment. Under our Government, interest rates have come down, inflation is within the target band for the first time in over three years, businesses confidence is at a 10-year high, and construction costs have stabilised. Our work to grow the economy and the investments in Budget 2025, including our Investment Boost package, will see more businesses have the confidence to grow and hire more people. Hon Ginny Andersen: How many jobs were lost because her Government cancelled approximately 3,500 Kāinga Ora home builds? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, I'm really proud of our Government's National Infrastructure Plan and the work that's under way both in terms of hospital rebuilds, new classrooms, as well as State housing buildings. But what I'm more proud of is this Government has got high interest rates down, inflation under control, and stabilised the costs of building. So, actually, we can build more with less. Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question to the Minister was how many jobs were lost as a result of those houses being cancelled for builds. I don't believe the Minister got anywhere near addressing that question. SPEAKER: Well, it depends on how you view it. The Minister might like to have a look at it, but I do need to say that asking how many jobs are lost on a cancelled project is kind of a double negative. Projects cancelled, there were no jobs. So let's have another crack at the answer. Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Sure. So a project is a project when it's funded, and so if the member would like to think about funded initiatives, then actually there's no change. Hon Ginny Andersen: Why did her Government cancel the Apprenticeship Boost for civil engineering? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, if the member would like to ask the appropriate Minister that question, then I'm happy for her to do that. Hon Ginny Andersen: Employment—employment! Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, it's about looking at delegations, looking at who's responsible for what, and I'd invite you to do that. Hon Ginny Andersen: What is her plan for engineering students who are unable to complete the required 800 hours of work experience in New Zealand because there is no work available here? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, as I say, it would be really useful for the member to put the question to the relevant Minister because I think that would be useful, in terms of tertiary education, in terms of vocational education. But, look, I'm proud of our Government's plan around infrastructure, our investment in hospital rebuilds, school classrooms, and housing. We are a Government that is investing in growth, which is exactly what Budget 2025 was all about. Hon Ginny Andersen: What workforce planning is under way to ensure construction companies will be able to get back the workers who left for overseas after major construction projects were cancelled by her Government? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, as I said, a project can't be cancelled if it wasn't funded in the first place. But as I say, the Minister beside me, the Hon Chris Bishop, has announced today the National Infrastructure Plan, and Budget 2025 is filled with investment projects that our Government has committed to and funded, which is where jobs get created. Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Minister confirm that there is approximately $3 billion to $4 billion of construction of infrastructure projects starting in the next six months, including the Melling Interchange project, the Ōtaki to north of Levin project, and the Brougham Street State Highway 76 programme down in Christchurch? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I can indeed, and I can also say proudly about the industry partnerships that the Ministry of Social Development have under way with organisations like Downer—who were here in Parliament a couple of days ago—who have got 1,600 job seekers off the benefit and into work because of infrastructure projects. SPEAKER: Just wait for 30 seconds, and can I just say that a commentary about the appropriateness of Ministers answering are covered by the fact that it is the Government of the day who decides what Minister can answer any particular question. So while the pick and choose might be something that's fun to speculate about, it's not reasonable. Hon Ginny Andersen: Is the fact that there are 15,000 fewer jobs in the construction sector evidence that her Government strategy to cancel 3,500 Kāinga Ora builds, scrap the Apprenticeship Boost for civil engineers, and axe workforce development councils has failed and National is just making life harder for Kiwis? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I absolutely refute the numbers that that member referred to. We know she's not good with numbers; that's more examples of that just now. I'm really proud of our Government's record when we have come into economic conditions where unemployment has been rising since 2021. Unfortunately, high interest rates and high inflation lead to recession and higher unemployment rates. Instead of putting our head in the sand, we are focused on getting job seekers into work, and our work exit rates show that what we are doing is working. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question. SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Winston—[Interruption] The Rt Hon Winston Peters and no one else. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister learned of the good news of the significant number of home and unit do-ups, additions, renovations, extensions in Auckland Central? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said, I'm really proud of our Government's focus in Budget 2025 around improvements and funding for bringing older social homes and State houses up to scratch, which is one of many measures in Budget 2025 around infrastructure and building and construction. Question No. 9—Climate Change CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): To the Minister of Climate Change: does he stand by his statement that "it is our expectation that we will"— SPEAKER: Just hang on, hang on. I don't know what's going on today, but the amount of conversation going around the House while questions are trying to be asked is unacceptable. Chlöe Swarbrick, please start your question again. 9. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Climate Change: Does he stand by his statement that "it is our expectation that we will remain an associate member" of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance; if not, why not? Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): I stand by the statement in the context in which it was given last November, which was that the Government's intention to repeal the offshore oil and gas ban did not necessarily mean New Zealand would not be able to remain a member of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance. Subsequently, the New Zealand Government made the decision to withdraw, in good faith, our associate membership, and informed the alliance of this decision on 21 June 2025. Chlöe Swarbrick: How exactly does a $200 million taxpayer-funded subsidy for new fossil fuels, which the Government's own advice says will take at least a decade to produce new gas, help the energy transition, as he said in his statement today? Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, while loosely connected to the primary question, the reality of the situation which this Government faces is that due to a shortage of gas in the electricity sector as a result of prior decisions by prior Governments, we are now dealing with a critical situation in the context of needing to ensure that we have more gas available to keep the lights on, and, as climate change Minister and energy Minister, I make no apology that my primary focus is to ensure that we can keep the lights on for New Zealanders. Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Minister stand by his statement, also from November, that our membership of the coalition to phase out fossil-fuel subsidies "fits well with New Zealand's leadership of the Friends of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform Group and our role as Chair of the recently signed Agreement on Climate Change Trade and Sustainability,"; and, if so, how exactly does that align with his Government's $200 million taxpayer subsidy for new fossil fuels? SPEAKER: Look, I'm just going to suggest that the member needs to reflect, in supplementaries, either on an answer that's given by the Minister or the content of the primary question. The last two have barely done that. The Minister may answer if he is able. Hon SIMON WATTS: I stand by the statements in the context in which they were given last November. The New Zealand Government remains in the position that we will undertake a just and orderly transition away from fossil fuels. Chlöe Swarbrick: What exactly is "just and orderly", in terms of a transition away from fossil fuels, about the Government's commitment to $200 million in a new fund for fossil fuels that will begin production in 10 years' time? Hon SIMON WATTS: What I can be very clear about is, "just and orderly" is not repealing oil and gas and causing significant uncertainty to New Zealand industry in cutting off the fuel that actually powers New Zealand industry and produces a huge amount of economic value, including the majority of our primary sector. Chlöe Swarbrick: What is the value of our international reputation, or our commitments to international agreements, if this Government continues walking away from and breaching them? Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, I reject the premise of that question, but what I can comment on is that the importance of the New Zealand relationship in the context of our global partners has never been more important than now, and the importance of the fact that our Prime Minister is currently overseas doing significant positive work on behalf of this country to double the value of our exports by 2035 and ensure that we are open for business should be something that we should all be very proud of. Hon Chris Bishop: Can he confirm that this is the first time as climate change Minister he has ever been asked a question from the Greens' climate spokesperson? SPEAKER: Well, that's so far wide of the primary question that it probably is not fair. Question No. 10—Agriculture 10. MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Agriculture: Why is the Government banning full farm-to-forestry conversions on our highest quality productive land? Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): The Government is concerned about the effects the emissions trading scheme (ETS) has on our most productive land, with whole farm-to-forest conversions harming rural communities. When farms are planted in trees because of the carbon market, we lose the ability to produce the high-quality, safe food that consumers demand. We lose rural jobs, export earnings, and the families that go with them. The Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill, which passed its first reading in this House last night, will preserve our most valuable land that grows food for exports and that sustains rural communities. Miles Anderson: What effect has full farm-to-forest conversion had on the rural economy? Hon TODD McCLAY: A significant effect. The number of farms converted to forest amounts to more than 300,000 hectares since 2017. The primary sector has said that has resulted in the loss of more than 2 million sheep and beef stock units. Exotic carbon forests offer short-term economic boosts, through activity often decades apart. These boosts can be significant in the short term, but they cannot come at the total expense of farming communities that contribute each and every year. This legislation will address the harm that has been done to many regions around New Zealand, through the interaction of the emissions trading scheme and conversion of farms to forest. Miles Anderson: How will the bill protect farmland from full farm-to-forest conversion? Hon TODD McCLAY: The bill puts in place restrictions—a moratorium—on the planting of trees to go into the emissions trading scheme, on land use classes (LUC) 1 through 6, with farmers being able to choose to plant up to 25 percent of their own land. On LUC 6 land, which is some of our hillier sheep land, there will be an annual quota of 15,000 hectares to go into the emissions trading scheme. The legislation has exemptions for classes of Māori land so that they will be able to continue to plant. The bill also includes temporary exemptions where an investor can provide evidence of a qualifying forestry investment between 1 January 2021 and 4 December 2024, which is when this policy was announced and will take effect from. For instance, the purchase of land and ordering of trees prior to 4 December 2024 would be an example of proof of a qualifying investment, whilst either of these actions alone would not be. Miles Anderson: What is the impact on rural communities of whole farm-to-forest conversions? Hon TODD McCLAY: We've seen entire farms converted into exotic carbon forests under the ETS. Whole-farm conversions don't just affect landowners; they affect entire communities. Schools, local businesses, and services all depend on the steady year-round activity that farming provides. Three hundred thousand hectares of conversions is not sustainable for our food production, and it's not fair for the rural communities who bear the brunt of these conversions. From Southland and Central Otago, to the East Coast, across the King Country, and as far as Northland, schools have closed, services disappear, and rural businesses are struggling. The bill is about finding the right balance. It preserves choice: the choice to farm, the choice to grow trees, and the choice to sustain rural communities for generations to come. Question No. 11—Housing 11. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Associate Minister of Housing: Does he stand by statements made on his behalf that his proposed changes to the Retirement Villages Act 2003 would "include provisions for repayments but not mandate them"? Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing): If the member is asking that pātai by reference to a Northern Advocate article published earlier this week, no—fake news. Fake news. That statement imputed to me was not made by me or on my behalf. The journalist has now corrected the article, and I recommend that the member follow up with some light rereading of that article in due course. Ingrid Leary: Will he commit now to mandating fair repayment times and terms? SPEAKER: Sorry, I, unfortunately, missed seeing who was speaking during the asking of that question, but I'd advise them not to interrupt it again. Ingrid Leary. Ingrid Leary: Will he commit now to mandating fair repayment times and terms? Hon TAMA POTAKA: There are a number of matters that we are considering as part of a broader reform of this matter, including dispute resolution protections, and a wide range of consumer protections and various matters, including those that the member referred to, will be considered and are still under active consideration. Ingrid Leary: What other sectors are there where people have no control over when someone pays them back their own money? Hon TAMA POTAKA: That is quite a broad and open question, but what I can say is this Government is responsibly reviewing a wide variety of matters, including consumer protections for elderly folks that are living in retirement villages. Ingrid Leary: Why does he think operators here wouldn't survive a mandated repayment period when parts of Australia have had one for 26 years, where no operators have gone bust as a result? Hon TAMA POTAKA: There are some very loose comparisons that are being made, but we are really focused on ensuring that we understand fully the implications of some of the issues that are being raised and we will take policy decisions in due course. Ingrid Leary: Will he support a law change which requires operators to give residents their money back within three months, or has lobbying by the big operators convinced him that only incentivising them and not mandating will somehow magically fix the problem? Hon TAMA POTAKA: If the member is asking me to jump in front of Cabinet and make decisions by way of a question and answer session, I will not be doing that. What I will be doing is diligently and professionally undertaking my responsibility as Associate Minister of Housing to explore these issues and bring these matters through the policy decisions and, ultimately, to this fine Chamber. Question No. 12—Mental Health 12. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister for Mental Health: What recent announcements have been made for the assessment and prescription for people with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)? Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): Yesterday, the Ministry of Health and Pharmac announced that, from February 2026, GP and nurses will be able to diagnose and start treatment for adults with ADHD. For those under 18, the change will allow nurses working within child health or mental health services to diagnose and start treatment for ADHD. The Ministry of Health will work with sector representatives to develop a clinical principles framework for assessment and treatment to ensure there is quality and consistency for patients with ADHD. This is a common-sense change that will make a meaningful difference in many lives of New Zealanders. Tom Rutherford: How will the changes benefit people with undiagnosed ADHD? Hon MATT DOOCEY: Too often, I've heard stories of people with ADHD who have been unable to get a diagnosis and treatment in a timely manner, due to long wait times and costs associated with seeing a specialist. This change will help break these barriers and improve access to support. It will lead to faster assessments, fewer delays, and lower costs for those seeking help, and will be life changing for many people. The Ministry of Health estimate that these changes will improve access to treatment for 7,000 Kiwis in the first year and a total of over 50,000 new people accessing treatment in five years' time. Tom Rutherford: How do these changes reflect feedback from those with lived experience and advocates for those with ADHD? Hon MATT DOOCEY: I want to acknowledge the many advocates with lived experience, and others, who spent years advocating for this change. This decision is based on the recommendations received from both healthcare professionals and patients who have been through this before. I'm pleased their feedback has been heard loud and clear. I hope they know the positive impact this decision will have on many people's ability to access what is often life-changing medicines. In particular, I want to acknowledge the work of Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour, Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick, and the mental health cross-party group, all advocates for this important change. Tom Rutherford: What support from the public has the Minister seen for this change? Hon MATT DOOCEY: I've seen numerous messages from members of the public and the ADHD community supporting these changes. Luke Bradford from the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners said it will help people access diagnosis and treatment, make it quicker and more affordable. ADHD New Zealand's reaction was one of excitement—completely welcomed the change, noting it had been 25 years in the making. Tash, who messaged me, said, "Thank goodness, great news. It makes access so much easier and will take some stress off the specialist." Brilliant to see so many messages from people impacted by ADHD welcoming this common-sense change. © Scoop Media
Scoop
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Principles Of The Treaty Of Waitangi Bill — Second Reading
Press Release – Hansard Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill Second Reading – 10 April 2025 Sitting date: 10 Apr 2025 PRINCIPLES OF THE TREATY OF WAITANGI BILL Second Reading Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Justice): I move, That the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill be now read a second time. Members of this House can still change their minds—[ A disturbance occurred in the gallery, and a member of the public was removed on the instruction of the Speaker. ] SPEAKER: Let me make it very clear: anyone else in here who thinks that's an acceptable intervention in the activities of this Parliament will be treated harshly by the officers of the law who are here. It's completely unacceptable. We live in a democracy. This is the place where opinions are given, not from the gallery. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Members of this House can still change their minds and send this bill onwards to a referendum of the people, and I ask that members listen carefully to understand the choice they'll be denying the New Zealand people if they oppose this bill. Five decades ago, this House passed the Treaty of Waitangi Act, saying that the Treaty had principles but failing to say what they were. And those principles, as a concept, are not going away. The National Party and New Zealand First commitment to review the principles will not get rid of them. The review will not touch the Treaty of Waitangi Act itself, and it will only review other bills with the help of Te Puni Kōkiri. With the unelected Parliament silent on the principles for 50 years, the unelected judges, the Waitangi Tribunal, and the public servants have defined them instead. They say the Treaty is a 'partnership between races'. They say one race has a special place in New Zealand. The effects of these principles have become more and more obvious lately. We've seen a separate Māori Health Authority—[ Interruption ] SPEAKER: Just stop! We're going to hear the balance of this speech and all others in silence. It's not a matter to be excited about. It's a parliamentary process. Everyone has the right to speak and be heard, and they will be today. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: We've seen a separate Māori Health Authority. We've seen resource management decisions held up for years awaiting cultural-impact assessments due to Treaty principles in the Resource Management Act. We've seen half the seats governing three waters infrastructure reserved for one-sixth of the population. We've seen public entities appoint two chief executives to represent each side of this so-called 'partnership between races'. And we've seen a history curriculum teach children to believe history is a simple story of victims and villains divided by their ancestry. Some will say that a Government can change these policies case by case. And, indeed, I'm proud to be part of a Government that is doing that. The problem is, though, that another Government can just as easily bring them back if the bad ideas behind these policies are not confronted. And that's why we see professional bodies, universities, the public service, and schools nurturing the divisive idea that the Treaty is a partnership, hoping it will grow again at some future time. The partnership principle tells us that Kiwis should be ranked by the arrival of their ancestors. We've seen it in recent weeks. Just one disgraceful example was the attack on my colleague Parmjeet Parmar by the dean of a law school for being a migrant who proudly chose this country. She faced no consequences for that, and it shows how low our country has sunk. The idea that your race matters is a version of a bigger problem. It's part of that bigger idea that our lives are determined— Rawiri Waititi: The Treaty doesn't mention anything by race. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —by things out of our control. And I hear the leader of Te Pāti Māori saying, 'Oh, it's not about race.' He named his party after a race. Of course you have a problem with race in this country under our current policies. They may have occurred, these problems, these ideas that determine our future. These events may have occurred before we were even born. We face a denial that we can make a difference in our own lives and that we have a right to do so by this old-fashioned primitive determinism that should have no place in a country that is founded, and lived in, by pioneers. We are all thinking—we are all valuing beings. We should all have 'ngā tikanga katoa rite tahi', the same rights and duties, just as the third article of te Tiriti itself says. And that's why the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill would finally define the principles in line with the Treaty itself, giving all Kiwis equal rights. And let me read those proposed principles because if anyone wants to vote against this bill in this House today, then let them explain specifically why they oppose the words in the bill. It says, 'Principle 1: The Executive Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and the Parliament of New Zealand has full power to make laws, … Principle 2: (1) The Crown recognises, and will respect and protect, the rights that hapū and iwi Māori had under the Treaty of Waitangi … at the time they signed it.', so long as those rights are extended to everyone who lives here or are set out in a Treaty settlement and, 'Principle 3: (1) Everyone is equal before the law. (2) Everyone is entitled, without discrimination, to—(a) the equal protection and equal benefit of the law; and (b) the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights.' People who oppose this bill should ask themselves, what is the best argument they have against these principles and are they prepared to say that argument out loud? And, if not, perhaps they should support the bill so the people of New Zealand can have a say at referendum. I now turn to the submissions from the select committee, and I'd like to thank the chair and most of the members of the committee. They heard 80 hours of submissions—nearly a record. However, submissions are not a referendum. If MPs believe that the bill should be passed depending on public opinion, they should front up, vote for the bill, and send it to an actual referendum, which is what the bill does. There are many bills that have attracted large numbers of opposing submissions and, yet, been very popular with the general public—the end of life choice and abortion law reform both had 90 percent of submissions against them at select committee but proved overwhelmingly popular with the public, and so it is with the principles I've just read out that, on average, enjoy support from the public by two to one when all New Zealanders are asked on an equal basis. Select committees, while they may not tell us about numbers, can, though, tell us about ideas. And I believe that this submission process has actually been very useful. Some argued against the bill's first principle that this Parliament has the full power to make laws. They said that the chiefs never ceded sovereignty when they signed the Treaty. What they cannot explain is how a society is supposed to work without clear laws that apply equally to all. The answer is that does not and cannot work. People who believe, for example, that an American county or an Indian band in Canada having limited jurisdiction and a limited territory is the same as shared sovereignty are not taking the issue seriously. Still others argue that maybe Parliament can make laws but not this law. What they're really saying is our constitutional future can be decided by the unelected but not the elected and certainly not the people in a referendum. Those are the fundamentally undemocratic propositions anyone opposing this bill is really signing up to. They do not trust the New Zealand people to determine their constitutional future, and I'm so proud to stand for the one party in this House that most certainly does. There were two objections that cancelled each other out. One said the bill isn't needed because Māori don't actually have special rights in New Zealand. Other objections said the bill is an abomination because it denies Māori equal rights. Which one is it? It can't be both. Well, the truth is that we are all equal deep down, but too many of our policies aim to treat people differently based on their ancestry. This is why we have to remove that idea that New Zealanders have different rights and are ranked by the arrival of their ancestors. A more interesting objective is that Māori have group rights to such things as language and culture. Some Māori have been told this bill will take away the mana of their reo and their tikanga, but that is simply untrue. This bill supports all people to cherish their taonga. If we're going to have Diwali, Lunar New Year, and the Highland games, of course we should have kapa haka. We have media in many languages. There's no reason not to have te reo Māori. The bill provides for that. We just don't need to divide the country in a 'partnership between races' to do it. Other critics say the bill must be wrong because the bureaucracy said so. Of course they do. If the bureaucrats got it right, we wouldn't need the bill in Parliament, but the problem is what the bureaucracy has invented in the last 40 years is contrary to equal rights in liberal democracy. Finally, some critics say that the debate is divisive. Well, I say it has revealed the division. I say it's revealed a sizeable minority of New Zealanders who oppose equal rights, liberal democracy, and treating each person with the same basic dignity. I want to end my speech with a quote from a Jewish man who wrote a book in Christchurch while he was hiding from Nazis in World War II. The book is The Open Society and its Enemies. It's been described as the most important book ever written in New Zealand. His name was Sir Karl Popper, and he said, 'The more we try to return to the heroic age of tribalism, the more surely do we arrive at the inquisition, the secret police, and a romanticised gangsterism. Beginning with the suppression of reason and truth, we must end with the most brutal and violent destruction of all that is human. There is no return to a harmonious state of nature. If we turn back, we must go the whole way. We must return to the beast. But if we wish to remain human, there is only one way, the way into the open society. We must go on into the unknown, the uncertain, and insecure, using what reason we may have to plan as well as we can for both security and freedom.' Members of the House and public of New Zealand, a free society takes hard work and uneasy conversations. I'm proud that my party has had the bravery, the clarity, and the patriotism to raise uneasy topics, and I challenge other parties to find those qualities in themselves and support this bill. We will continue to fight on for the truth that all Kiwis are equal. Āke, ake, ake. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Normally, when I rise in this House to speak on a bill, I say it's a great privilege to speak on the bill. That is not the case today. This is a grubby little bill, born of a grubby little deal. It has had a colossal—[ Interruption ] SPEAKER: Excuse me. I'll make it clear just once: the gallery do not interfere in the activities of Parliament. Another outburst like that and we'll clear the galleries—everyone will be going. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It has had a colossal impact on the fabric of our nation, and this bill will forever be a stain on our country. What I do take pride in is the way New Zealanders have come together over the last six months to say, loud and clear, 'This is not us; this is not Aotearoa New Zealand.' For 185 years, Māori and non-Māori have worked together to make progress. We honour those who have come before. We stand on their shoulders today. When I say 'we', I mean those on this side of the House—Labour, Te Pāti Māori, the Green Party—united in our determination, throughout this debate, to defeat this bill, to end the division that it has created, and to bring this country together. Today, National and New Zealand First join the opposition to this bill, but they can claim no victory, no virtue, and no principle; they get no credit for finally starting to fight the fire they helped to ignite. Today, their votes will fall on the right side of the ledger, but they will forever be on the wrong side of history when it comes to this bill. Not one National MP should walk out of this debating chamber today with their head held high, because, when it comes to this debate, they led nothing, they stopped nothing, and they stood for nothing, unlike the 300,000 New Zealanders who stood up to be counted when it comes to this bill; all those who marched in the streets together—Māori, non-Māori, ethnic communities, young and old—saying, 'This is not New Zealand, and this will not define who we are as a country.' This is a bill based on a mythology—a mythology that is far too easily turned into outright lies: the myth of Māori special privilege. Life expectancy seven years lower than for other New Zealanders is not special privilege. Being twice as likely to die from cancer as others is not special privilege. A higher rate of childhood hospitalisation, 40 percent of Māori living in the highest areas of deprivation compared to just 10 percent of Europeans—these are not signs of privilege. But too often these statistics are twisted to suggest that Māori are wanting the Crown to save them. I've been up and down the country in recent years speaking to Māori all over New Zealand, and that could not be further from the truth. How ignorant, how blind, and how wrong those statements are. Māori have been very clear: what they're asking for is partnership, for the Crown to walk alongside them and to embrace by-Māori, for-Māori solutions. Māori want to do the mahi themselves, and they want the Crown to stop acting as an impediment to that. I say it's time we listened and it's time we acted on that. When it comes to Māori politics and politicians, I have found that there are two approaches in common, and I spoke about these before the last election: playing the race card, spreading the myth of Māori special privilege, talking about one law for all, and playing on people's fears; but on the other side is the middle ground, keeping quiet and, too often, watering down policy so as not to be seen as too pro-Māori. I said before the election, and I'll say it again today: I reject both of those approaches, because when Māori thrive in New Zealand, all of us benefit, all of us will thrive, and non-Māori have nothing to fear from Māori getting ahead here in New Zealand. Once again, I say to the members opposite in the National Party, where are the voices like Christopher Finlayson, Doug Graham, Jim Bolger, Jenny Shipley, John Key, Bill English, who were proud of the Treaty partnership, who embraced concepts like co-governance, and they didn't call it divisive. Our work, in Government, which has been the subject of much debate on that side of the House, actually built on the foundations that were set by successive Governments, both Labour and National. It is that history of progress that today's National Party have turned their backs against. In my lifetime, we have changed as a nation for the better—from one that punished kids for speaking te reo Māori to one that embraces te reo Māori in all of our classrooms; from one that ignored our history to one that teaches all of our kids in all of our schools Aotearoa New Zealand's history; from one that turned a blind eye to the wrongs of the past to one that makes amends and commits not to repeating the same mistakes again. Until today, that is. Christopher Luxon called Te Tiriti o Waitangi 'a little experiment'. Winston Peters claims that Māori are not indigenous to Aotearoa. In fact, as I was re-reading my notes from before the election, I was reminded of a quote by a New Zealand First candidate in this most recent election campaign, which I'm going to quote directly from: 'Cry if you want to, we don't care. You pushed it too far. We are the party with the cultural mandate and the courage to cut out your disease and bury you permanently.' That was a New Zealand First candidate speaking about Māori in New Zealand. It made me sick to my stomach then, and it still does now, because te Tiriti is not 'a little experiment'; it is a bold promise and a bold vision. It is not a source of division; it is what binds us together. Yes, it is a partnership, a structure, something to work towards, a promise to uphold, because, as I've said, when Māori thrive, all of Aotearoa New Zealand thrives. Over 185 years, we've worked together to fulfil the promise of te Tiriti—the good and the bad—and there has been far too much bad in that work. We have discussed, debated, and argued about the meaning of te Tiriti. We've argued about what the visionary rangatira who signed it had intended. That 185 years of history, of debate, of discussion, of argument, of progress, informs how we interpret te Tiriti today, and no member of this House simply gets to wipe all of that 185 years of history away to suit their own purposes. The Treaty of Waitangi is not just history, it's not just ink on paper; it's a living promise. Today, on this side of the House, we honour that promise. We commit to continuing to strive to do better, to bring people together, to move our nation forward. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] We must work together for the wellbeing of all, work together in partnership. Coming together does not mean being the same. It does not mean thinking the same. It does not mean acting the same. It means embracing our differences but working together to find common ground so that we can all move forward together. So let's finally consign this grubby little bill to the scrapheap of history, where it can take its place alongside the other darker acts of this House that have also been consigned to our history. Let's instead move forward together. Let's find a positive, lighter path, where we can bring the country together, where we cannot play on prejudice but seek to reconcile our differences, where we can celebrate our history—the positives of it—and recognise the ugly parts for what they were and commit to doing better. This debate has not been helpful for the fabric of Aotearoa New Zealand. It is well and truly time for it to be over. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): The people have spoken and like them, the Green Party opposes this Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill. I have never felt so much FOMO than that when I was unable to be working and was mostly confined to my home and felt the kaha, the wairua, the beautiful energy of the hīkoi all around the country and the hīkoi to this place, te Whare Pāremata. Tēnā koutou e te whānau. Tēnā tēnā tātou katoa. I was so inspired by your beautiful kotahitanga energy that I ran and found my tino rangatiratanga flag and took a photo in my backyard as me trying to grab any contribution to feel like I could be a part of the movement that the people so brilliantly created off the back of this miserable piece of little bill. That backyard photo went a little bit viral, but nowhere near as viral as the haka that happened in this place. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] It is perhaps ironic then that this is the first and only chance that I get to speak to this bill, but I will be using my space today mostly to amplify the voices of the submitters. After all, that is what a second reading speech will most normally do. This House will and should hear repeatedly today that 90 percent of the submissions oppose—and that's from 307,000 submissions; record-breaking submissions to the Justice Committee—this bill. Also, a record-breaking 80 percent of the oral submissions also oppose this bill, and that is also from 529 oral submissions. The people spoke. There was one clear message: Toitū Te Tiriti. Part of the reason why the people were not fooled at all by this bill is because we now have generations of understanding that Te Tiriti was always a dream from mine and your ancestors—the promise of peoples to take the best possible care of each other. That is an iconic kōrero from Bishop Manuhuia Bennett, which actually needs to be the understanding of where we are going to. We can take even further the voice of one of the submitters, Dayle Takitimu, who said, '[We assert that Te Tiriti] is [a] core agreement that affirms [the] place to belong and a place to stand for everyone in Aotearoa'. We can also look at the incredible poetry of another submitter, Karlo Mila, who outlines perfectly the vision for Aotearoa, for our mokopuna to come. Karlo says, 'The answer is te Tiriti, not separatist exclusion. It's the fair terms of inclusion, an ancestral strategy for harmony, a covenant of cooperation. It's how we live ethically on land that was never ceded.' The Green Party is proud to have always affirmed the mana motuhake, the tino rangatiratanga, the self-determination of iwi and hapū guaranteed by Te Tiriti. We had a dig around. We did a bit of research and what we found—which I know that the pushers of this bill did not anticipate—was that there has not been another bill with a record-breaking number of submissions to select committee that was met with such overwhelming power of opposition. I am so proud once again to highlight the people have spoken and they have spoken clearly and strongly. The people are not fooled by the ACT Party trying to ignore the injustice and inequity that has seen, for example, that Māori are three times more likely to be arrested and convicted of a cannabis-related crime than non-Māori, but let us be clear, for doing the same thing. So this is what we need to point out: three times more likely to be arrested and convicted for doing the same thing. The ACT party, I challenge them to release their myth of special Māori treatment and find their equity bone, to find their equity analysis, and to ignore their myth of Māori privilege and find their equity analysis deep within their bones. I implore them so they do not bring any more embarrassing bills like this to the House. Te Tiriti is forever, and that's what we have heard and that's what I will say again, and again. But what we know is that this Crown has not yet actually upheld its promise, its side of taking care of each other. Again, we can go to the words of Karlo Mila in the second part of her passage that I read out earlier. She says, 'But we watch political parties sow seeds of disunity using disingenuous history. Harnessing hate speech, and the haka of destiny. Scapegoating vulnerable enemies, sharing just a joke fantasies of blowing up ministries targeting ethnic minorities.' This was an incredible opportunity for the Prime Minister who is not even here receiving the harm— Hon Member: Point of order. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: I take that back. SPEAKER: Withdraw and apologise. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: I withdraw and apologise. It would have been a fantastic opportunity to see the leaders across all of our parties be here— SPEAKER: I'm sorry, that's the same line. Move on. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: OK, I'll move on. Where are our leaders listening to us today? SPEAKER: No, no. You can't do that. The member's speech will be terminated if it doesn't come back to point. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. Speakers' rulings make it very clear that there's a convention not to mention a member's absence, but there is an exception to that where it is a particularly important moment. This is a particularly important moment where hundreds of thousands of people have made a submission, and one member in particular has chosen not to be here. SPEAKER: Actually, Dr Webb, you've just exacerbated the problem, and I'd advise you not to push that too much further. Marama Davidson, return to the basis of your speech without reference to anybody else in this House. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: I no longer need to. I do want to take a moment to acknowledge the movement and I will also take this time—I think it's appropriate—to acknowledge the incredible Hinewhare Harawira, who lies right at this time at Whakapara. As her whānau says, she was an unstoppable force in the drive of tino rangatiratanga. I think it is really appropriate that we acknowledge her particular presence and passing in this House today, and that Hinewhare and so many others are just part of generational work that has amounted to the huge uprising from a diverse range of people from diverse communities who have said very, very clearly, 'We are not falling for what this bill is trying to do.' We have now got generations of examples of us working together and upholding Te Tiriti, seeing the value, and the benefits, and the beauty in the vision of taking good care of each other, working together at the grassroots level and understanding they knew what this bill was trying to do. They could sniff the division a mile away and they came to the Justice Committee, they marched the streets, they signed petitions, they wrote postcards, and they said very clearly, 'Toitū Te Tiriti. Te Tiriti is forever, and we are not fooled by the attempt to divide us.' In fact, there was a particular moment in the select committee submissions where we even had an ACT MP attempt to drive a migrant away from centring Te Tiriti, where the Muslim community leader Anjum Rahman was asked if she was comfortable—by that ACT MP—with new migrants potentially being left with different rights to Māori. She said, 'I reject your framing. I reject your question. This is a way to try and sow division between communities and we see you.' is what she said. She said, 'When you go to ethnic minority communities and try and promote division between our community and theirs, we hear you when you say, 'Oh, your community suffers racism too, and [they get] special treatment.' ' And she said in her submission Māori did not get 'special treatment. They [did not get] privileges. They are getting the rights that were promised to them, and the help that should have been upheld in a very minuscule way.' I am so pleased that the people came and spoke. We are proud to stand here today to oppose the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill. Toitū Te Tiriti. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The outcome of the vote today has been known since the Treaty principles bill was introduced. National has consistently said we'll not support it into law, fundamentally because we regard the bill, which seeks to impose a particular interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi by simple majority and referendum, as a crude way to handle a very sensitive topic. National believes in equal citizenship and equal opportunity for all New Zealanders, and we hold that there are better ways to defend those principles than through this bill. So it was clear, from the beginning, that the Treaty principles bill was not going to pass. And yet it still generated 300,000 submissions. Of those, more than 16,000 New Zealanders wanted to come and talk to the select committee, and more than 500 actually did. In the meantime, some 40,000 people marched to Parliament to oppose it, and it's dominated two summers. So what are we to make of this? Clearly, it shows that many people feel passionately about the topic, and I want to acknowledge the effort so many people put in to expressing their views. Some of the submissions were truly remarkable. It's equally true that the bill has provided a convenient vehicle for political campaigns, on all sides. And that is politics. We'll hear all sorts of hyperbole today, as we already have from the Leader of the Opposition, about how terrible it is for National to allow this bill to even be introduced. That is just froth and spray. Coalitions require compromises. National opposed the bill and would have preferred it not to have gone forward. ACT wanted to have the bill passed into law. None of us got what we wanted. That is life under MMP. Our country is not so fragile that we can't withstand a debate about the role of the Treaty. And we certainly won't take lectures from Labour about division. I'll never forget seeing Willie Jackson on TV casually declaring that democracy in New Zealand had changed, as his Government was pushing an agenda of co-governance on public servants. And all of us were wondering what on earth he meant and when we had discussed it, and when the people of New Zealand had been asked whether they wanted their democracy changed. National opposes this bill, but we do not oppose the open and frank discussion about the Treaty of Waitangi in our laws and within the context of a modern democracy. That discussion is alive and well and will continue. The critical thing is that we try our best to conduct that conversation with good grace. We live in a turbulent world, with examples every day of how societies can tear themselves apart. For all our faults and our disagreements, we hold things together very well in this country, and I have every confidence that we can continue to find a way through. Parliament first referred to the principles of the Treaty in the 1970s, but never defined them. The courts stepped into that vacuum, as we know, and over the past 30 years, principles of the Treaty such as the concept of partnership have been given greater weight. The interpretations of the court are not gospel; they should be debated. But if enacted, the Treaty principles bill would have short-circuited that debate. Parliament would simply have set down its interpretation of the Treaty and then sought a majority of the public to confirm that in the referendum. That would have, at the stroke of a pen, unwound more than 30 years of jurisprudence. And as I said at the first reading of the bill, there will be a wide variety of views within Māori, just as there are amongst any other group. But those opposed to the changes would likely conclude that fundamental change was being imposed upon them by a majority if it were to pass, and that would risk stoking an already keen sense of grievance. That's why National hasn't supported this bill. We continue to believe there are better ways to address the many legitimate questions about the role of the Treaty in our democracy today—to progress with the numerous specific changes that we're making case by case, issue by issue. The guiding principal is that, in our efforts to honour Treaty of Waitangi commitments, Treaty settlements, and to acknowledge tangata whenua, we should never lose sight of the basic expectations of people living in a modern, democratic society, such as equal voting rights, equality before the law, and, broadly speaking, an equal say in matters affecting their lives and in the world around them. There can be a tension between those two things, between honouring commitments to Māori flowing from the Treaty and the basic expectations of equality in a modern democracy. This is a tension that we can't just gloss over and ignore. Our proposition is that as a nation, we should be serious in our commitment to the first, but, in doing so, should be careful never to lose sight of, or drift too far from, the second. People, ultimately, have choices: where to live and where to invest. For our country to continue to succeed, those basic expectations of equality before the law must remain. This is not a topic, I don't think, that lends itself to neat, tidy, single solutions; it has to be worked through issue by issue. That's why we've reasserted the principle that healthcare should be delivered on the basis of need alone. That's why we're pushing back against the previous Government's move against equal voting rights in local government. It's why we've unwound co-governance arrangements in core public services and a separate Māori health authority. It's why we've also taken the unusual step of introducing legislation to overturn the marine and coastal area Act—a decision in the Court of Appeal. We're now considering following the Supreme Court's decision in terms of what steps are necessary, if any. That's why we're embarking on the challenging task of reviewing the Treaty references in existing legislation, to ensure that they're clearer about what Parliament does and doesn't mean—or to remove the Treaty references if there is no clear reason for having them. None of this is easy. At the same time, we're committed to continuing and completing the Treaty settlements process that was begun in the 1990s—around two-thirds of the settlements have been completed; many under previous National Governments. It has been a bipartisan effort across many decades and has involved thousands of Māori up and down the country, studying history, negotiating, forming new structures to manage settlements. Successfully, we have reestablished strong financial bases, confidence, and ambition. The settlements have never been an exercise in achieving perfection. Many Māori complainants will rightly point out that the settlement payments reflect only a fraction of what was lost, and that's true. Equally, the process requires today's iwi to spend sums running to the billions, and to agree to bespoke arrangements in specific places, often because of events going back as far as 180 years or earlier. So Treaty settlements require grace on both sides, as well. Treaty settlements and the continued substantial investments in preserving te reo, Māori culture, and expanding their reach alongside investment in a great variety of Māori solutions to the challenges we face are all part of the effort we make as a country to address the injustices of the past, to recognise our unique history and blended culture, and to build a better future. And we're proud of those efforts. And this Government will never lose sight of the reality that the things most Māori want are the same as most other New Zealanders want: they want a strong economy that will deliver jobs and incomes that will sustain our standard of living, they want decent housing, they want to feel safe in their communities, for their kids to have access to a great education that will set them up to succeed in the modern world, and they want to have access to quality healthcare when they get sick. The reality is, in each of those areas, Māori, on average, currently have worse outcomes than the average New Zealander, and we want to work together with Māori New Zealanders to change that. The work we're doing to fast track consents for infrastructure and new industries across the country are designed to raise income for Māori and all New Zealanders alike. And that's why Māori businesses are keen to be part of it. The effort to restore law and order and deal with truancy will help Māori most, because they are more likely to be victims of crime and to not attend school regularly. The amazing progress we've made to reduce smoking rates and to increase immunisation rates will help Māori most. When we think of a referendum in 2026—[ Interruption ] SPEAKER: Sorry, that member can take herself out of the House if that continues. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. When we think of a referendum in 2026, our preference is for the election to be a referendum on this Government's success, or otherwise, in making progress on those massive challenges. And I have every confidence that we, together, will make genuine progress in these areas. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill. I acknowledge that our leader, the Deputy Prime Minister, is wanting to be here but unfortunately is boarding a plane as we speak. I'm honoured to be able to give this contribution. I want to reflect on what it is we are here to debate. Despite the absence of any judge or academic being able to clearly define the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, the ACT Party believed it could. Despite what has been suggested in the purpose of the bill, legislation would have taken us back into the courts, which is the last thing this country needs. To put this issue before the courts is exactly what we needed to avoid. Alarmingly, it appears that in the political posturing this bill has brought to this House, no thought was given to the turmoil should a referendum fail. We saw the 'car-koi' when it was clearly known that the bill would not pass, the political noise and upset that it created around communities—all this posturing and political point-scoring that distracted us from the real work we need to do as a nation. We have heard that in the forming of a coalition Government, there are compromises. There have been compromises, and New Zealand First knows that, because we have been part of those coalition agreements on many occasions. We know that we can agree to disagree on many aspects. Even if we agree, which we don't, and even if it were to pass—and it won't—a subsequent Parliament could change the definitions and so the cycle would continue. The unintended consequence of this legislation—something that does not need legislation. What would the courts do with this legislation? It is plain wrong to take the responsibility of determining the role of Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the highest court in the land to the judiciary, which would have been the outcome of this bill. Even Sir Kenneth Keith, the lawyer's lawyer, pointed out that it is undesirable for constitutional issues to get settled by courts. If we look back to our history, Sir Apirana Ngata was a strong advocate— Rawiri Waititi: Oh, here we go again. Hon CASEY COSTELLO: —for protecting the Treaty from being ratified by Parliament. I find it abhorrent that the mention of Sir Apirana Ngata's name is treated with such contempt in this House. [ Interruption ] SPEAKER: All right. The balance of this speech will be heard in silence. There are members down there who have been pushing it pretty hard who won't be staying for the balance of the debate if they keep on interfering. Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Let us do what is right for us as a nation. When I last spoke on this bill at its first reading, I talked of the dignity of this House. I talked of the obligation we all have in this House to ensure that this esteemed debating chamber is not censored. There is nothing to fear from challenging ideas and presenting different positions. This House is strong enough to withstand fractious debate as long as we protect the duty we have to honour the rules that guide us and respect the decisions that are made. New Zealand First may not support this bill being brought to this House, but we support our democracy and know we can challenge the status quo and debate something contentious. That is the democracy we must protect. The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill is one such contentious debate. It seeks to legislatively define the principles, the premise being that this bill will fill a silence on who we are as a nation, it would deliver unity, and resolve the debate in perpetuity. As I've said, perhaps that is not what we would achieve. New Zealand First has the longest uninterrupted position on the place the Treaty of Waitangi has in our collective identity as a nation. It is in the signing of this Treaty that our nation was formed. It started our journey and forged our identity. It is through the forming of our nation that we came together as a people over time, not instantaneously on 6 February 1840. We had much to resolve. We still do. Our iwi at the time did not consider themselves unified as one people, and in ceding sovereignty, no impact was immediately felt. In fact, very little changed, as our history will attest, immediately after the Treaty was signed. But we did change. This Parliament was established; laws were passed, and our great country flourished. One nation, one flag, one people—that is who we are. New Zealand First has been challenged. I have been challenged as to why this bill is not supported. Our message is simple. The foundation of our country was the Treaty that brought us together, not principles that were loosely fashioned in an effort to expedite settlement processes and divisive interactions between Māori and the Crown. Defining principles is not a debate that takes us forward or brings us together. To take us forward, we need to understand in each legislation what the obligation is that we owe to each other as citizens to give effect to the intentions of each law. In particular, how democratic Governments respond to issues raised by Māori—not the courts or tribunals, but by Māori to their elected representatives. What will deliver the outcomes needed to benefit our communities? That is what New Zealand First has committed to delivering, not entrenching a reinvention of the Treaty and what it means to New Zealand but providing a clear path forward to a better nation. We will deliver a pathway to economic prosperity for iwi to allow them to be unshackled from a narrative of grievance. I have spent years defending our rights as New Zealanders to be treated respectfully and equally before the law. Whatever journey brought us to this nation, we are owed the same rights in this House as a duty to ensure that is what our laws provide. We do not need new legislation in this space. We need to clarify, simplify, and verify our existing laws. To do this, we need to recognise and respect an honest account of our history. Importantly, an honest account of our history will make sure we are not oppressed by the racism of low expectations. When we can look to our tūpuna for what they achieved, we can silence the narrative that we are a nation of two peoples. When we look to our tūpuna, we can understand what personal responsibility means, what honour and dignity means, what sacrifice and hard work means. We can be aspirational, not divisive. This is the legacy that is to be honoured. I have spoken at the first reading of this bill about New Zealand First leader and Deputy Prime Minister the Rt Hon Winston Peters' reverence in speaking about our great Māori leaders who forged the path for a better New Zealand. Sir Apirana Ngata, Sir Peter Buck, Sir Māui Pōmare, Sir James Carroll all shared the position that there were no principles to the Treaty, and this remains New Zealand First's position. It is under the shared knowledge and understanding of our history that New Zealand First has remained committed to the purpose of the Treaty. As Dame Whina Cooper said, we signed the Treaty to become one people. We cannot allow the Treaty to be weaponised, and we cannot allow it to take a place that will forever position us as New Zealanders in conflict with each other as a result. That is the very antithesis of what was intended by the bill. This Parliament must hold fast to our democracy and retain supremacy over the direction we take as a country. New Zealand First knows this means clarifying our existing legislation. New legislation that entrenches the definition of the principles is not the solution for our country. It is not an end position. It would be a launching platform for those who gain political relevance by driving a narrative of victimhood in the absence of doing the hard work to improve outcomes. New Zealand First is the party of practical action. We know what New Zealanders are calling for and it is not more noise but a pathway to First World wages, top class education, a warm, dry home, and access to healthcare when they need it. We talk much in the House about what divides us—our quantum of Māori, whether we have a vanilla lens, or who is qualified to speak for who. That is what oppresses us. That is what deprives our future generations of achieving their potential. It is time to put this bill to rest. We have work to be done and serious decisions to be made. New Zealand First is up for the challenges that are ahead. We know we need to work effectively together and how important it is that Parliament is respected. If New Zealand First believed this bill had merit, we would have supported it. We do not. New Zealand First does not commend this bill to the House. SPEAKER: Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke—split call. HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Some of our greatest trees fell on this journey. From the West, [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] o Te Pāti Māori, Tariana Turia. To the East, [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] This speech has been the most daunting speech I've ever had to write, and I've said, 'Oh no, what am I going to say now?' How are we supposed to voice the 270,000 written submissions, the 13,600 oral submissions, the 300,000 signatures on the petition, and the biggest hikoi, with 100,000 footsteps, marching to Parliament? How do we piece this all together in a five-minute speech? Here's how: we're not going to talk about the Treaty principles bill today. This bill was an undebatable and a non-negotiable debate, and the whole world knows our view on it. The real issue is not this bill, nor is it doing a haka or practising our indigenous customs in Parliament. The real problem is that this institution—this House—has only ever recognised one partner, one culture, and one language from one Treaty. When will the rules of this House acknowledge the laws of this land: tikanga and Te Tiriti o Waitangi? That is the real question of privilege here. At our darkest hour, we could have chosen to fight this, but we chose to survive this. This bill hasn't been stopped; this bill has been absolutely annihilated. Aotearoa New Zealand made it clear to our country that it does not support this bill. We are not divided, but united, with 90 percent of our country's submissions saying no. Why would we even entertain the 8 percent divisive rhetoric that this bill tries to achieve, and waste $6 million worth of taxpayers' money when that could have been given and spent on proper food for our tamariki? It was the voices from Times Square, New York, to Kaikohe; the streets of Oxford to Ngāruawāhia; the Waitangi Tribunal; the art on kākahu; the anonymous person who sponsored thousands of Te Tiriti books; the hundreds of submissions, from Whatawhata to Whangārei; and the call for unity with hui-ā-motu across the country. We could write hundreds of books on the oral submissions and their gems spoken from people like Tā Timoti Kāretu, Dr Kalo Mila, Maia Te Hira, and more, and on the rangatahi from Te Aupōuri who carried the banner all the way from Te Rerenga Wairua to the forecourt. This ignited an emotion that echoed with all walks of life, all races, all ages, and all genders across the world. Just remember, it was their voices—their powerful voices—that engaged to drown out this bill. So where to next? These past two years have been completely about survival. This next chapter needs to be about steps to thriving, and our road map to our next destination has never been so clear. For us to thrive, our job over the next few months will be to create bills, policies, and legislation to remove significant barriers that disallow Māori from accessing their basic rights—not privileges. Aotearoa hou isn't a fantasy. It's a place where there is unity, and the road map has no roadworks on it and it doesn't stop us from accessing our basic rights, like proper healthcare without a two-week wait. It's not having to decide whether to learn our language with student debt. It's being able to come home to build without having to wait three years for the Māori Land Court. It's Māori owning the first-ever supermarket to break down the supermarket duopoly. It's being able to swim in your tupuna awa, not chemical quarries. It's 14 Māori seats in Parliament. It's not having a five-year waiting list to enrol your tamariki in kōhanga. It's a place of having 4,507 Māori tamariki coming out of State care. It's having Maunga Kahurānaki back for its uri. This is tino rangatiratanga—control over our daily decisions that we make. Brick by brick, we will move from surviving to thriving. Ka mate, ka mate! Ka ora, ka ora! Ka mate te pire! Ka ora te iwi Māori! We had two choices: to live or to die. We chose to live. Ka ora tonu tātou āke ake ake! TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Mr Speaker, te iwi Māori, tangata Tiriti—that'll teach him. The Treaty of Waitangi Principles Bill has been an emotional rollercoaster. I know that for many of the people who made their voices heard, they didn't have the time or the money or the energy to give, and yet they showed up in droves. The whole process was so difficult because at every juncture in this journey, we gave them an opportunity to change their minds. We battled in the select committee, at every single meeting, 'OK, New Zealand First and National Party, let's get rid of the bill, then, if you don't support it so much.', and those opportunities were turned down. It was a privilege to absorb all the knowledge and the wisdom from all the people who came to talk to us, from Ani Mikaere, to Vincent O'Malley, to the Hon Chris Finlayson. I felt so much shame and so much sadness in many of those submissions, as we had iwi come and talk to us—some so angry they were shaking. They couldn't even articulate the trauma that this whole process has rehashed. This was an example of Parliament sticking the knife in again, and again, and again. I was fighting for my life in the select committee. I remember very tense conversations even amongst Opposition parties, because there is more than one way to skin a cat and there is more than one way to kill a bill, and we all had different ideas, but we all knew that this needed to go in the bin. So I want to acknowledge, Duncan, Tracey, Ginny, and Tākuta for all of the mahi that we did representing the kotahitanga that our people want to see and deserve—and behind closed doors; hard, methodical, genuine mahi behind closed doors. As satisfying as it would be to say a massive 'shame', I will leave it with a whakataukī that one of my tūpuna from Ngāti Awa said. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] I want to give a special mihi to all of my colleagues who have put in the mahi. We collected 13,000 signatures. We collected 640 postcards. We went into schools, we went into touch tournaments, we went to community hui, and we also went into the clubs and collected submissions. I also want to acknowledge my friend and colleague Steve Abel for being my tag team partner in all of the submissions. Steve represents a generation of people who were not lucky enough to be taught about Te Tiriti in schools but whose earnest dedication to learning and to fighting beside iwi to stop the ransacking of our coastline, our forests, and our whenua is what made him realise that our interests, tangata Tiriti, and te iwi Māori are not different. They are the same. So to every tangata Tiriti who made their voices heard and said that that little man does not represent your views, kia ora to you. I would like to acknowledge Eru Kapa-Kingi, Riana Te Ngahue, and Luke Fitzmaurice-Brown for bringing the kōrero to TikTok, bringing it to the new generation, to understand what the conversation meant and that their voices were important. I want to thank the Zanes, the Bloody Samoans, the Rawhitiroas, and the Shamias for bringing this conversation to the people and making it accessible. E te iwi, the fight is not over despite their crocodile tears. We still have a Government that is willing to use our mana as a cheap bargaining tool. Despite what the New Zealand First member has just told us, they are the ones who want to remove 28 general Treaty clauses across legislation. That is disgraceful. They are the ones who want to introduce the fast track bill, which will ride roughshod over important Treaty rights for our whenua. Attacks on indigenous people everywhere are happening right now. This is not unique to Aotearoa. This is part of a coordinated plan to undermine indigenous people everywhere. But I say to my first-nation brothers and sisters in Australia, as I do to the Palestinians who are having bombs dropped over their heads in Gaza right now, we stand together. They will not win. They have deep pockets but we have the people power and we will not be quiet, and this is a valuable lesson to leave our Tiriti alone. Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the now former chair of the hard-working Justice Committee, I wanted to focus my contribution today on the process that the committee went through in considering this bill. As I do so, I would like to acknowledge the work of the clerks—[ Interruption ] SPEAKER: OK, just hold it there. Some of the conversations that are going on now need to stop. Hon JAMES MEAGER: I'd like to acknowledge the work of the clerks and the Select Committee Services team on this bill. It was an interesting test case juggling three different clerks throughout this process—and the number of staff that we had helping us—but at all points they were upfront, they were clear in their work, and they provided consistent advice, sometimes in the face of quite significant severe personal reflections from members of the committee. So I wanted to acknowledge the work of the clerks and team on this bill. In doing so, can I also acknowledge the work of the committee, and MPs on the committee, who generally worked collegially and collectively in this work. It's helpful, I think, to point to Appendix B in the select committee report for the record of decisions made by the committee. I think the public should look at that appendix and should analyse it for the consistency and the amount of unanimity that actually existed in the committee. Most of the decisions in the committee, if not all of them, bar a few, were made unanimously on things like the length of submissions, the number of hours of submissions we would hear, how to treat form and template submissions, how we would set criteria for what submissions would be heard. They were all decisions that were agreed to unanimously by the committee, and it showed the collegiality and what can happen when members of the committee work together well. I did want to provide the public some reassurances after the past few weeks and some of the information that's been going around there; I want to reassure the public that every submission that has been made to the committee has been read by someone. It has been read by an official in the ministry, and the themes from those submissions integrated into the departmental report. I would encourage anyone out there who is interested in this process to read the departmental report. It is rich in information, it is rich in content, and it reflects the incredibly hard work done by the ministry officials in reading over 300,000 submissions and synthesising them into that document. Every submission that has been made to the committee has been available to all members of Parliament—not just those on the committee—at all times. I wanted to clear that up. There has been some misinformation out there that members have not had access to those submissions. Again, if you go through the record, you can see that we agreed to the process of accessing submissions from the clerks team. All members agreed to that, and it is very disappointing to see suggestions that suggest otherwise out there. Every submission that has been made to the committee that meets the criteria set by the committee will be published and tabled and released publicly for everybody to see so that they can see for themselves the content of those 300,000 submissions. Again, the committee has reported the bill back because there is no further work to do. There were some suggestions that this has been outrageously rushed back into the House, but following the end of 80 hours of submissions, over 529 people making oral submissions, at the end, all of the work programme has been completed. Members all agreed unanimously that no changes to the bill needed to be made. They all agreed that the Parliamentary Council Office did not need to draft a revision-tracked version. They all agreed that the report back would come soon. They all had three chances to consider the draft select committee report, and at the end every single member on that committee voted for it to be reported back to the House. So that needs to be placed on the record for the reassurance of the public. There is a lot to go through when it comes to considering what we went through on this bill. I wanted to touch on a few things, a few lessons, maybe, learnt by the Parliament if this was to ever happen again. In early January, the select committee was called back somewhat early from some people's holidays to deal with the issue of the parliamentary website crashing. Now, I want to provide some reassurances to the public that at no time has there been any suggestion of foreign interference or scurrilous behaviour in that process. It is simply a matter of what we all did throughout our careers and throughout university and school of leaving it to the last minute and the website not being able to handle the volume that came through on the very last day. That is it. No conspiracies, no interference—that's what happened. I think we learnt a lesson there in terms of setting the time for responding to submissions. Generally, submissions are set to be due by 11:59 p.m. at night. That, of course, meant that any issues with the process were unable to be answered by the select committee team and by the parliamentary team. So, moving forward, I think on bills of significance we should consider setting those deadlines to be the middle of the day so that people have a chance to deal with any of those issues. Questions remain throughout the public about how easy or how hard it was to make a submission, and there were complaints sent through to my email and to our office about the fact that it is a very straightforward process to make a submission. And I think there are questions to the House about whether or not there are restrictions put in place. I actually think it's a good thing that it is as simple as possible for the public to make submissions to the select committee. All you need to do is go to the Parliament website, enter your submission, and it is done. Alternatively, write in and write it in hard copy. There are questions around whether or not you need to provide ID and whether or not you can do them on other behalf of other people. I will put a thought out there—if you are wanting to make a submission to the Parliament as an individual or as an organisation, do that on your own steam. Do not rely on third-party organisations or third-party activists or political parties who go out there and want to collect your data and harvest your data and purport to provide your submission on your behalf. If you want to make a submission to this Parliament, use the process that is made available. It is easy, it is straightforward, it makes the clerk's job incredibly straightforward and easy and it means we do not run into issues of people having their submissions counted or not counted in terms of them being form submissions. I wanted to touch on the purpose of the select committee process because members today and throughout the process have talked about the numbers and talked about it being a record-breaking achievement. The purpose of the select committee process is not a poll. It is not a petition. It is not a referendum. It is not a platform for advocacy. It is a process to allow legislators in this House the opportunity to scrutinise legislation, to offer improvements, and to make amendments. That is what it is for. It is not an advocacy platform, it is not a performance piece, and members across the hall can laugh all they want, but if you are a parliamentarian and you are committed to the process of scrutinising legislation put forward by the executive, by the Government, you will take that process seriously. It is not a popularity contest. It is not a numbers game, and comments like it is 'record-breaking' are very unhelpful to that process. In the time remaining available, I want to clarify some remaining pieces of misinformation that may be sitting out there in the public, and this is primarily a message for parliamentarians and how they conduct themselves within select committees: partial disclosure of incomplete information which is designed for political gain and results in confusion and anger in the public is deeply unhelpful for our democratic process. We have had to spend a significant amount of time and resource, including in the Clerk's Office, to deal with that misinformation being spread by members of Parliament, deliberately, for political purposes. So let me state once and for all, for the record: the appendix in the select committee report outlines every decision made by the select committee up until the deliberation phase. And there is only one side which has been consistent in our desire to ensure that people have had their say and their voices are heard throughout the entire process. Tamatha Paul is correct, they did try at every opportunity to stop people from having their say. We voted the bill through the select committee as per the coalition agreement; we did not oppose the open discussion. We called for public submissions and allowed the public to have their say; the Opposition voted for the bill to be reported back on the same day it was introduced to the select committee. We were the ones that called for oral submissions to be held; the Opposition called for only written submissions and to prevent every single oral submission from being held. That is part of the record. We were the ones that instructed the ministry to prepare a departmental report; the Opposition voted for no departmental report to be written, therefore no analysis of submissions and no opportunity for members of the public to have their submissions read and synthesised into the report. We were the ones that invited the Minister in charge of the bill to present and make his case to the select committee; the Opposition opposed that opportunity. Finally, we need to make it clear that the committee unanimously wrote to the Business Committee to seek the agreement to make sure that every single submission was counted, while the outstanding ones were processed for consistency with the Standing Orders, and it is the Opposition which opposed that process. I have tried my best to set the record straight on some of those issues and to provide some reassurances for the public out there. But I do finish my contribution by extending my gratitude to the hundreds of people who did take the time to present to us in person in select committee, and who did so with grace, with a sense of measure and with composure, and with a level of respect and manners that I don't think that was always afforded to them by members of our committee, and that is a great shame. For those individuals who were treated disrespectfully by members of Parliament when they gave their submission, I want to apologise to them. I want to thank all of those who sent kind words to the committee for the hard work undertaken in terms of considering this bill, whether they supported it or not. I'm glad that we are bringing this piece of legislation to a conclusion this afternoon. I'm glad that we can look forward to the task of rebuilding our economy and building a brighter, more prosperous future for all New Zealanders. The members opposite may laugh, but that is what we are focused on here. In saying that, we do not support this bill passing and I'll conclude my contribution by saying we do not commend this bill to the House. Hon Member: Total waste of time. Chlöe Swarbrick: Well, that's the Prime Minister! SPEAKER: That is the last outburst that member is to contribute to the House. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): I wanted to acknowledge the Harawira whānau, firstly, because this week they lost one of their matriarchs and one of their leaders—Hinewhare Harawira—and my marae hosted the tangi for a day and a night. I mention her because she was one of the biggest fighters against this bill. I mention her also because Te Pāti Māori turned up. They were there a little earlier than me. They gave a copy of the bill to put in the hole with Hinewhare tomorrow! So [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] But we remember her well and her fight for Māori rights. So we mihi to that whānau today, to Hone Harawira and the whānau, and they'll be burying her tomorrow. I want to also thank, today, the Justice Committee, particularly our leader over here—Duncan Webb and Ginny over here, who did a fabulous job. I also want to congratulate the chair, although I wasn't too happy with his speech today, but, without doubt, the next leader of the National Party and probably first Māori Prime Minister when the coup takes place in National over the next few months! The Treaty principles bill has highlighted the very worst of our democracy and, at the same time, the very best of our democracy. This race-baiting political stunt has been a right-wing obscenity masquerading as equality. You should be ashamed on that side of the House—they should all be ashamed—for allowing this hate into Parliament. What is most offensive is the way that the ACT Party and the political right have twisted the narrative to fit a racist agenda. The Treaty, as people have said, is not about racial privilege or racial superiority; it is and always has been about legal rights that Māori have in their contract with the Crown. Once and for all, for David Seymour's and his supporters' benefits, Treaty rights are not special privileges, or even extra rights, as he likes to paint them; they are rights that were in place before the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. The Treaty simply reaffirms those rights, the rights and acknowledge language, culture, identity, and property rights. It's ironic, isn't it, that the great advocates of property rights—the ACT Party—are so opposed to this. We get it now. Property rights only count if your Pākehā, but, if you're Māori, forget about them! Those indigenous rights didn't suddenly disappear when Māori signed the Treaty or when Mr Seymour dreamt up his Treaty principles bill. To therefore twist Treaty rights into some claim of apartheid is not only disingenuous, it is bad faith—and those two words sum up this whole disgraceful episode. That is bad faith. ACT never wanted a genuine debate on the Treaty, because this was never about a real engagement of ideas. This was always about whipping up racist hysteria, and calling that a debate. We heard David Seymour today, he compares his end-of-life referendum with this political stunt, and tries to claim that they're similar. No, they are not, Mr Seymour. The end-of-life referendum was a conscience issue; whereas rewriting the Treaty and forcing it upon the indigenous people, using the tyranny of the majority, is an outright assault on our history and on our rights. You cannot compare the end-of-life referendum with an attempt to erase Māori legal rights. On a philosophical level, the end of life is an individual right. Rewriting the Treaty is not an individual right; it is a property right that has enormous impacts that go well beyond the individual. Finally on referendums, Mr Seymour, they're not always the solution that you make out they are. Sometimes, believe it or not, the majority get it wrong. Your Government is an example of that! Let's look at referendums. Let's ask the Aboriginal people of Australia what they think of referendums when they were, sadly, defeated in their vote to recognise their indigenous rights last year. Or maybe the rainbow community—do we really think that homosexual law reform would have been passed in the 1980s? Give it a break. No chance. Or perhaps when my auntie Hemara Jackson, the nanny of young Hana over here, when she presented the Māori language petition over 50 years ago, talking about rights for te reo Māori, talking about te reo being an official language, do you think the public would have supported that? Do you think her and Ngā Tamatoa and all of our Māori language advocates would have been successful if this was a subject of a referendum? Not at all. Not a chance—not a chance. Here's the real question for all the brilliant lot in ACT: rather than test the legitimacy of the Treaty by a simple referendum, why not respect the decades of Treaty jurisprudence that's been developed by both Māori and the Crown, and, more particularly, the leading legal minds of this country? But, no, 'I'm Always Right' Seymour refuses to do this. It's an absolute disgrace how he refuses to accept the words of our greatest legal minds, politicians, academics, and, of course, Māori. Very similar, I might add, are people who believe that the world is still flat and not round. That sums up him and his nutjob supporters. While ACT and their band of appalling supporters are the very worst of our democracy, the way people have responded in rejecting this is our democracy at our best. Of the over 300,000, 90 percent spoke against this lie. Over 100,000 around the country—100,000 marching to call the stunt out for what it was. The massive cross-section of civil society, our young people, our Pasifika whānau, our Pākehā allies, tangata Tiriti, the disabled community, the rainbow community, unions, churches, and academics all combined as one to cry out that the Treaty is our shared identity. [ Interruption ] SPEAKER: Yeah, just cut out that conversation down here. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The Treaty is our hope and is our shared unique feature that defines us. There are vastly more of us who see the Treaty as a positive rather than a weapon to divide us. ACT's hate has been defeated here today. Let us not forget all of this divisiveness, all this naked racism, all this spite and malice has been whipped up by them and a redneck agenda, sadly, in our view, that was allowed because the Prime Minister Christopher Luxon did not stand up against David Seymour. Wait a minute, he didn't even have to stand up—he didn't even have to stand up. As we found out, this wasn't even a bottom line in negotiations. So much for the great negotiator Christopher Luxon! It defies belief that we're talking about the Treaty principles today, given that we now know the full story behind the coalition agreements. Shame on the Prime Minister. Our nation required leadership on race issues, but the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, wanted to be the Prime Minister at all costs, blinded to ACT's demands—well, they weren't even demands in the end—and instead of resisting, he caved into them. Where is the Prime Minister now? That's the question. Let it be known that history is watching this day, and the people will not forget who turned up and who didn't and who led and who didn't. Our leader turned up. What a fabulous kōrero from him today. It was fabulous. His kōrero about coming together and celebrating our differences is resonating with our communities. His acknowledgment that Māori did not concede tino rangatiratanga—or sovereignty—is the first time that any leader of a mainstream party has admitted that in Aotearoa. Why? Because he knows 80,000 Māori are not going to give up rangatiratanga or their whole lives to 2,000 settlers. So, well done to our leader who shows courage which is, sadly, lacking from the Government at the moment. I said in the first reading that David Seymour was talking falsehoods, ignorance, and nonsense. I've had time to reflect on my speech; it may come as a surprise but my views haven't changed with Mr Seymour. I want to say again how proud I was of the select committee. I want to honour that committee today. So my final words in terms of my kōrero today: I have to say to David Seymour, and say to you straight—oh, he's left the building— Hon Members: No, no. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: He's over there. Well, I'll say to you wherever you are—oh, there you are, David Seymour: you're a disgrace to this House, and, when it comes to the Treaty of Waitangi, you will always be a liar. Kia ora, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: The member will withdraw and apologise for that statement. Mr Jackson, you need to withdraw and apologise for making that statement. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Well, Mr Speaker, if I was to withdraw and apologise, it would be an insult to 270,000 select committee submitters, who all think that Mr Seymour is a liar, also. SPEAKER: Good. That is your opinion. Leave the House. Hon Willie Jackson withdrew from the Chamber. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I don't think he was talking about his character; actually, David Seymour was lying on the ground over there. SPEAKER: Rima Nakhle. And we will go back to listening to speeches in silence. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Ahiahi mārie to everyone who has tuned in, and haere mai to all gathered in our parliamentary Whare, particularly my quasi-niece, Ripora, who has travelled all the way from South Auckland to witness this kaupapa. Welcome—habibtii. I rise to convey my whakaaro on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill in its second reading. I believe I've exercised my duty on the Justice Committee, as a member, as best I could, and I want to thank the former chair, the Hon James Meager—who sits beside me—and my colleagues across the committee for the work and for the passion that they put into this kaupapa. It was often very testing and quite emotionally taxing, but I felt privileged, throughout the process, to see, firsthand, New Zealand dialogue and history unfolding. I often share my National Party values, where appropriate, and here, if I may, I would like to share one of our values that's been around for a long time: equal citizenship and equal opportunity for all New Zealanders. The challenges of the Treaty are complex—they're complex—and as I've said, they're challenging. For over 185 years, we have grappled with these challenges together, and together we will continue to do so. This model has served New Zealand relatively well, and I truly believe that we are more open minded and a tolerant country because of our Treaty discussions. As we've heard earlier, and throughout this whole conversation, the National Party strongly asserts that a referendum on the Treaty would be a simplistic approach to an extremely complex and challenging issue, and so today, we are voting to ensure it will go no further—I say this respectfully to our coalition partners, but this is our strong view. As I look around the gallery, I see it filled with beautiful faces, many of which I am in the blessed position to know—friends sitting above from both sides of today's kōrero, friends whom I have sat down with in my home as we've shared Lebanese kai that I've cooked and discussed these challenging and complex issues that our country faces. We've disagreed, and we've agreed, and we've disagreed again, but all from a place of honesty, because we are in this together. That is what I hope we can take from today. I hope that we will continue approaching our relations on a measured, case-by-case basis, because that's what our profound history deserves. Let's underpin our conversations not with our desire for political points but rather with honest intentions for our collective future. Mātātoa, going forward—active, courageous, and valiant. I do not commend this bill to the House. CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Hearing speeches of vindication from that side of the House is very hard to swallow, because that has been this National-led Government that has allowed this ugly monster to rear its head in the light of day. The individual whose name this bill is in and his party have suggested the Treaty gives Māori different rights and privileges. By God, do I stand here privileged. I am the privileged product of generations of people who persevered in the face of breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, I am privileged to live on my whenua, and I'm privileged to speak tāku reo Māori, te reo ōku tīpuna—rights and privileges denied to too many Māori, rights and privileges that, through perseverance, we have managed to maintain and that this bill sought to undermine and failed. Aotearoa and, indeed, iwi taketake from around the world stood united against this backward-looking, divisive bill. And let's not forget resource wasting, [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Three-hundred thousand of you presented your opposition to this bill, and behind you was a nation united. The Aotearoa New Zealand we believe in organised and marched. Some of you, Aotearoa, simply changed your worldview adding momentum to this kaupapa. Mana Māori was never threatened by this bill. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] And, throughout this ordeal, people across Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and, indeed, Aotearoa have held fast to your vision for our future, and you're ready to get back to business—back to the business of ensuring an Aotearoa where our tamariki and mokopuna thrive in our ao Māori me te ao whānui, an Aotearoa where our whenua is nurtured and developed and whānau have a roof over their heads and our hauora is a priority, and an Aotearoa where you can earn a good living; back to the business of expanding the thriving Māori economy. And we're all about it. To get back to that business, e hoa mā, you need a Government that enables your moemoeā, and that ain't it. I said, in the first reading of this koretake bill, we do not need to change the Treaty; we need to change this Government. Toitū te Tiriti! Part one: tick. Let's get on with part two. They asked for the election to be a referendum. Let's deliver. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] I stand once more with pride and privilege to condemn this bill, and I repeat: this Government must not be vindicated. It is this Government that allowed this bill to cause the divisive conversations throughout Aotearoa. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I had an opportunity to participate in the first reading of this bill, and that debate was a momentous debate in terms of how this House views this legislation that's proposed before us. At that time, I made it clear that, in my view, over successive decades, New Zealand has grappled with how to deal with the Treaty. It's been a long, continuous, and ongoing debate, and that will be the case after this bill has been put to rest. That debate will continue, that discussion will continue—indeed, it will continue long after all of us have left this place. So while we don't necessarily always agree, successive National Governments have always worked well with Māori on Treaty issues, and we've always ensured that there are equal citizenship rights and equal opportunity for all New Zealanders. So the challenges that we confront as a nation around the Treaty are complex, and it's just not realistic to suggest that nearly 200 years of debate, discussion, protest sometimes, informed debate, education, and input from so many New Zealanders over all those years, should be settled just with the stroke of one legislative pen. It's too blunt, it's too simplistic, and it risks, in reality, actually stoking grievance and driving division. I don't think that's good for our nation. I don't think that that helps us achieve the goals and aspirations that we all seek to achieve by coming to this place. National takes, always, the more difficult and realistic, practical approach when it comes to working together, and we do so by working through issues in relation to the Treaty on a case by case basis. For instance, the reversal of a number of divisive co-governance policies from the previous Government, that would have, in fact, contributed to worse economic and social regulatory outcomes. For instance, Three Waters and the Māori Health Authority. We've also instructed Government agencies in the term of this Government to deliver public services based on needs, and working with iwi and other providers where specific needs exist amongst Māori and other communities. We are continuing to establish and progress Treaty settlements to address the historical wrongdoings. In another example, restoring the rights of communities to determine whether to introduce Māori wards after the previous Government denied local constituents the opportunity to do so; that's another example of a case by case approach to how we address those issues. So having participated in the first reading debate, having watched closely the work of the Justice Committee chaired by my friend and colleague the Hon James Meager, ultimately, I want to reiterate in my closing moments of my contribution in this debate that this National Party that I am proud to be a member of, our focus and the focus of this coalition Government remains firmly and steadfastly on improving outcomes for Māori and non-Māori. We do that by rebuilding our economy, by restoring law and order, and by delivering better public services for all New Zealand. This bill achieves none of that. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Well here we are, finally getting ready of this divisive and wasteful bill. Now, unlike James Meager, I'm not going to spend 10 minutes whining about process, but I will say two things. Firstly, there are 105,000 submissions that aren't on the parliamentary record to date, and to suggest that that's all OK is false. There was a room down in the corner with 24 boxes of hand-written and typed submissions, hard-copy submissions, that you had to go in and rifle through if you wanted to find something. And if you wanted to find a particular submission, you had to name it, you had to name the submitter. I'm sorry, but I don't know 307,000 people. What's more, whilst that process was still ongoing, the chairman of the Justice Committee moved the motion to report the bill back to the House 40 days before it was due—whilst we were still working through the submissions and putting them on the record. That is shabby. That is shabby process. But not as shabby as what the Government has done, and the Prime Minister has done, in letting this bill come to the House, because this is a bill that the Prime Minister had the gall to stand up and say that it's not going to pass, and to then bring it to this House is disrespectful to this Chamber. This Chamber's time is valuable and there should be put before this House laws which are seriously being considered, not flying up the flagpole some divisive bill. But I do want to pay tribute to those submitters—all of those people. And I must say it was humbling—not only to see the people who came in person from across the community but also to read some of those written submissions as well. And I want to pay respect to the diversity of the views—the people who came and gave their whakapapa and told their stories and expressed their vehement opposition to the bill, not in a way that David Seymour would understand but in a way that came from a long history. Not an academic tradition that I'm familiar with, but I engaged with it and I learnt from it. And I want to pay respect to the new immigrants who came and said, 'I'm proud to be here and to participate in this country, and I understand the Treaty helps me understand my place in this community.' And I see David Seymour's already on Twitter saying that he still doesn't have a good reason for why this bill is being turned around. Hon David Seymour: Try giving us one. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, I'll give you one—I'll give you one—it's a lie. The bill is a lie because it says one thing, and the truth is another. It says that these are the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi—and they're not. As Chris Finlayson said, you can't legislate to make the world flat. The fact is you cannot legislate the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi out of existence—they might be constitutional truisms or they might be undermining the customary position of iwi in our country, but they're not the Treaty principles. You can't make up the underlying fabric of the Treaty. So it's absolutely fatuous to suggest that this bill reflected, in any way, the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I want to address head-on—I want to address head-on—two other fallacies which underpin this bill. The first is that his stooges would front up to the Justice Committee and say this is about living in a liberal democracy. Their concept of a liberal democracy was shallow and impoverished because all it meant was one person, one vote. What it didn't mean was a respect for human rights; a recognition of indigenous people in the place where they belong. What it didn't recognise was the rights of minorities. So what we had was an argument which was about a hundred years out of date. And that's about where the ACT Party are. The irony is that all of the advice that was received, not just submissions but the thoughtful advice, pointed this out. And even the Cabinet Manual, a document which isn't a political document, makes it really clear that there is a balance to be struck between the rights of the majority—majority power in a place like this—and minority rights; the protection of fundamental social and constitutional values. But the ACT Party's not interested in that. They're interested in a radical individualism which doesn't recognise that there are communities of interest, that there are differences between people, and that in a modern liberal democracy, as Bronwyn Hayward so thoughtfully put, there is a duty to protect those people who are vulnerable, to respect indigenous rights, and to ensure that the majority does not oppress the minority. So that's what a modern, functioning liberal democracy is. Hon Kieran McAnulty: They don't want that. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: They don't want that, Kieran McAnulty, they want the opposite. They want they want to go back a hundred years and live in a radical libertarian world. The other argument they want—and again, I want to go head-on here, the ACT member on the committee would constantly put to members, put to submitters the following question: does the Treaty of Waitangi give different rights based on ancestry? Just an absolute trope of inequality. Now the lie in that, the falsehood underlying that statement, is that difference is inequality—and it's not. Now, there are all kinds of ways we can be different. We can have kaupapa Māori health services or schools or social services. And in fact, anyone who knows the area will know that you don't even have to be Māori to access them. They're for everyone. But to suggest that to deliver services in a particular way to best serve communities is in some way unequal is an absolute fallacy. Time and again, we heard the resource management trope come up. David Seymour himself mention it today. Now, we pressed on that, because if there's something there, we wanted to know. We asked the question: what is the special advantage that Māori have under the Resource Management Act? No one could put their finger on it. If it's a special advantage for mana whenua to be asked about a project that might impact their customary rights, well that's a world I want to live in, because that's actually respecting customary rights and property interests. And you should be respecting that as well. The suggestion that Māori are precluded in some way is just false. The fallacy is that the provision of services should be in a non-Māori way. What that does is essentially exclude the reality that there is more than one way of doing things, that we can do things which are equal and different. That's not appropriate. So what we have here is a situation where 300,000 people have stood up, and many people at select committee spoke up, but over there, they stood by. They stood by and did nothing, and they actually presided over a piece of legislation which has been exceedingly divisive. Now, you can talk about a conversation—and we are prepared for a conversation, and I'm proud to stand with my colleagues, my Māori colleagues who have spoken today here from the Labour Party, from the Greens, and from Te Pāti Māori. But to have an ill-thought-out bill based on premises which are fundamentally racist is not having a constitutional conversation. The time is to make up, to talk about how we honour the Treaty in a more fulsome way, and about how we live together and address some of the gross inequalities which continue in our society. But to put a bill into the House that we know is never going to be passed, so that we can see some of the hateful rhetoric coming out, is simply divisive, wasteful, and wrong. I'm proud to speak today, but not proud of what this House has done but proud of what New Zealand has done. It has come out in its thousands and hundreds of thousands to say, 'We'll have no part of this.' CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): My colleagues have already said that this law is a simplistic tool that does not address the underlying issues and they have highlighted the steps that the National-led Government has been taking to address the genuine concerns that Kiwis have, so now let me turn to the vision that National has for our country. We want a thriving, united New Zealand, where every Kiwi enjoys equal opportunity and equal citizenship and takes pride in our shared future. Kiwis do best when we are working together in a spirit of unity and of mutual respect. At the heart of our nation's foundation lies the Treaty of Waitangi, the document that sets out the framework for the relationship between Māori and the Crown. It is our duty to ensure the Crown upholds its obligations under the Treaty and that historical grievances are addressed in a fair and in a just manner. As my colleagues have also said, while we may not agree on every issue, successive National Governments have worked constructively with Māori on Treaty matters, always ensuring equal citizenship and equal opportunity for all New Zealanders. This is a commitment we will continue to uphold, addressing each case and issue on its own merits, always striving for better outcomes for all. National also has a proud record when it comes to Treaty settlements, having made more progress than any Governments in resolving historical grievances. More importantly, we are now seeing the benefits of this progress. The Māori economy has seen remarkable growth, with its asset base rising from $69 billion in 2018 to $119 billion in 2023. This is not just a statistic; it represents real, tangible benefits for communities across New Zealand, particularly in the regions, where Māori are making a significant economic contribution. The work we've undertaken in settling grievances is vital to ensuring and securing a prosperous future. We must continue to build on this foundation, ensuring all Treaty settlements are completed and implemented, with benefits flowing through to iwi, to communities, and to New Zealand as a whole. We must keep moving forward. In the past year alone, we've achieved notable success. Through partnership with Māori health organisations, over 69,000 vaccinations have been delivered to New Zealanders. We've seen more than 20 Māori-led or Māori-partnered projects placed on the fast-track list. We've also committed over $200 million to Māori housing providers and helped nearly 2,000 children, many of them Māori, move out of emergency housing. When Māori succeed, New Zealand succeeds. Our fates are intertwined. Together we are working towards a better, more prosperous New Zealand for the future and for the future generations of all Kiwis. National does not commend this bill to the House and it will vote against it. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill be now read a second time. Ayes 11 ACT New Zealand 11. Noes 112 New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion not agreed to. SPEAKER: Before I announce the vote, following this announcement, a waiata has been agreed to. The Ayes are 11; the Noes are 112. The motion is lost. [ Applause ] That's enough. If there is to be a waiata, now is the time. Waiata—'Tūtira mai ngā iwi' [ Disturbance occurred in the gallery ] SPEAKER: No, no, no. Fella, excuse me. Good boy—on your way. [ Interruption ] Someone come and help him out. I just want to say to the whole gallery, who are applauding: that sort of outburst does not help us move forward in the tikanga of this House—most unhelpful. Content Sourced from Original url
Scoop
25-04-2025
- Health
- Scoop
Medicines Amendment Bill — First Reading
Press Release – Hansard Medicines Amendment Bill First Reading – 8 April 2025 Sitting date: 8 Apr 2025 MEDICINES AMENDMENT BILL First Reading Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Health): I present a legislative statement on the Medicines Amendment Bill. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I move, That the Medicines Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move the bill be reported to the House four months and one day after it has received its first reading. The purpose of the bill is to help more Kiwis to be able to access the medicines they need to live a fulfilling life. The bill contains two main parts: one is a verification pathway, and the second is a number of changes to prescribing rights. Both of these changes are designed to make it easier for New Zealanders to get timely access to medicines so that they can live longer, happier, healthier lives. Both of these initiatives remove red tape and regulation that stop people from doing beneficial things, but that red tape and regulation doesn't actually protect them from any harm. To start with the bill's verification pathway, it will be an expedited alternative to the pathways currently available for pharmaceutical companies seeking consent to market their medicines in New Zealand. It will mean that, if a medicine has already been approved by two recognised overseas regulators, then Medsafe—the Government's agency for consenting medicines to be allowed to be marketed in New Zealand—will not need to carry out its usual full assessment. I want to acknowledge that this idea is one that all three parties—the ACT Party, New Zealand First, and the National Party—all campaigned on in the lead-up to the election, and it is a commitment in the coalition agreements of all three parties. It comes from the fact that, in recent years, many global medicine regulators have adopted what are called 'reliance models' for approving medicines, and these models rely, partially, on an approval and assessment report by another recognised regulatory authority overseas. Now, Medsafe first adopted a reliance pathway 15 years ago and was one of—we're actually one of the first countries to do this. But, in New Zealand, our time frames for medicine approval are still slower than Australia's target. They are far too slow, in fact, for many New Zealanders to receive the medicines that they need. The new verification pathway will mean that any applicants that can demonstrate their products have approval from two recognised overseas regulators can have their products approved for marketing in New Zealand much, much quicker. At the moment, it can take 400 days for a new medicine that's allowed to be used elsewhere—and I'm talking 400 working days, so two years—to be allowed in New Zealand. Under this rule, if it's approved in two other countries, it'll be allowed in New Zealand after only 30 days. I'd just make the point that I think this occurred to many of us during the time of COVID, when so many new treatments, new devices, were being created in order to battle COVID-19 and all its different variants. And oftentimes, things that were available and being used in other countries were not available here. Those of us who were in Opposition at the time would ask the Government, 'Why is it good enough for Australians but not good enough for New Zealanders? Or good enough for Americans or Canadians but not good enough for New Zealanders?' And the answer was, 'Oh, well, Medsafe has to approve it first.' And we asked, 'Why would we wait for Medsafe to prove that the rest of the world got it right?' Because Medsafe has never found something that's been approved overseas and not allowed it to be used here. The facts are— Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Didn't we amend the Medicines Act over urgency when it came to the vaccines? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: We've got Ayesha Verrall heckling, saying, 'Oh, we made amendments in the Medicines Act.' Well, that's right, because even the previous Government found it so frustrating to have to do a separate approval when it was approved overseas, and of course, if the previous Government had fixed the problem, we wouldn't be here. In fact, if the previous Government had fixed more problems like this, they might be over here, but they're not; they're over there, because they were hopeless at fixing problems. But that's enough from Ayesha Verrall—she's had a go. She's had her chance. Now, this verification pathway is actually part of the Government's wider work programme to streamline Medsafe's processes, find efficiencies, and speed up the public's access to medicines while maintaining appropriate safety measures and Medsafe's credibility as a trusted regulator, which I think is important. In this case, we have less red tape, more speed, and more access to medicines while maintaining the same level of safety, because we'll be asking ourselves: have any two of Australia, the United States, Japan, Switzerland, Great Britain, Canada, the European Union—you know, if any two of those jurisdictions have approved a medicine, the chances are that they didn't both get it wrong and it's safe to use here within 30 days, and I think that that's a wonderful improvement. We're also going to be making changes to prescribing. This bill will help make medicine processes more efficient by expanding the ability for more types of prescribers to prescribe unapproved medicines for their patients where those are necessary for their care, and I want to acknowledge the role that the former Minister of Health Dr Shane Reti played in this change. Medicines that are unapproved in New Zealand are sometimes necessary for a patient's care as a last resort, and that particularly happens during a shortage, where the thing that's gone through the consenting process in New Zealand, even with the new faster process, may not be available because, often, there are shortages, especially in recent years with supply chain troubles. At the moment, only medical practitioners can prescribe what they call off label: give a different medicine—a substitute—while the usual medicine is unavailable. This bill expands that ability to nurse practitioners. Nurse practitioners have advanced education in clinical training to practice, they can work autonomously, and they're often involved in innovative service provision. It's time to give them a bigger role. Especially in rural and other communities which have difficulties in accessing GP services, nurse practitioners are hugely important—not to mention in aged residential care. Now, nurse practitioners can currently prescribe a range of medicines for their patients, but enabling them to prescribe unapproved medicines within their scope of practice, I think that's appropriate for their patients—in the scope where these are appropriate for the patient's care, it means that the patients can access medicines faster and will not be required to seek a prescription from a medical practitioner. Finally, in further changes to prescribing, the bill goes further and enables all authorised prescribers to prescribe unapproved but funded medicines in situations where there's a supply shortage. For example, in 2020, Pharmac funded an alternative oral contraceptive because there was a supply shortage, and with increasing supply chain issues, as I've mentioned, it's important that we have that flexibility. When there's a supply shortage of approved medicines, Pharmac can fund unapproved medicines as a temporary alternative, and yet not have to go through a consenting process all the while. It means that for patients that may not be able to get a prescription filled when they take it to a pharmacy, they can get another prescription from a GP because the only medicine available is that unapproved alternative. The proposed changes will mean that pharmacists, prescribers, registered midwives, dentists, nurse practitioners, dieticians, and optometrists will be able to prescribe these medicines within their scope of practice, and this is going to save time for patients, doctors, pharmacists, and other health practitioners, and it will improve the continuity of care. All of our authorised prescribers are trained professionals, and this Government wants to make the best use of our health workforce. As I was thinking about this bill coming to the House and the work that's gone into preparing it, I was thinking about the challenge that we face in healthcare. We have an ageing population, we have increasing amounts of medical technology, and we have enormous challenges affording the standards of healthcare that people want. I'm reminded of one of the greatest New Zealanders—that is, Sir Ernest Rutherford—who once said that we didn't have much money, so we had to think, and this is a small contribution to that culture. We don't have much money, so we've got to think. If a medicine is already approved in two other countries, let's make it available to New Zealanders, because we ain't going to find anything that two other advanced countries that are already using the medicine haven't found. Other countries are already relying on each other; we should rely on them, too. If there's a medical shortage and there's a person who is qualified and capable, such as a nurse practitioner, of issuing a prescription of something off label, then let's let them do it, because if you don't have much money, you've got to think. We're going to have to do a lot more of this in healthcare: remove red tape, enable people and empower them, and let them make a bigger difference. If we do all of that, then I think we can overcome the severe challenges that we face in healthcare in this country and across the developed world, and with that, I commend this bill to the House very much. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): It's nice to hear that speech by David Seymour—a man who has many bad ideas, but I'm not convinced this is one of them. At the heart of the issue of medicines regulation lies the issue of patient safety, and it is important to recognise how important it is to New Zealanders that Medsafe and international regulatory organisations focus on that: ensuring the safety, quality, and efficacy of our medicines. Medsafe has a rigorous assessment process that protects public health by preventing the entry of unsafe and ineffective medicines to New Zealand. I am not as rosy on the look of the history of medicines regulation as the Associate Minister of Health was. When I look at New Zealand's history and around the world, there certainly are examples where medicines regulators have not got it right. We should never forget that. The example that was important in the early part of my career was formoterol, asthma medication that caused children's death. However, in New Zealand and around the world, there are regulatory bodies that do a good job of assessing the science, the data, and making sure that medicines that are available in markets are safe. Medsafe New Zealand has achieved that, but so have many others around the around the world. For that reason, Labour will support this legislation at its first reading so that these important issues can be considered at select committee. The Minister was right to point out that the verification pathway is the focus of this bill, but also already exists to some extent the ability to use data from overseas medicines regulators—that's section 23 of the current Medicines Act 1981. This bill introduces a new pathway based on recognition of full authorisations from two trusted overseas regulators. It could represent an improvement by reducing the duplication of regulatory effort and potentially speeding up the availability of medicines in New Zealand. Of course, we commit to taking the time in select committee to checking that there are adequate safeguards and particularly mechanisms for Medsafe responding promptly if safety concerns arise overseas. It's important that detailed requirements and conditions attached to medicines approved by this pathway are clearly set out in secondary legislation and regularly reviewed. I'm thrilled by the Minister's enthusiasm for alternative prescribers, including nurse practitioners, but many others. It is a shame that the Therapeutic Products Act is not there to give effect to those, but never mind—we'll move on to the next point. Why are we doing this? The stated benefits of this ares that—and they're well outlined in the regulatory impact statement (RIS), I think it's paragraphs 14 and 16—the proposed changes emerged in the context of discussion around improving access to medicines. That is a very helpful discussion our country has had. The intent behind the verification pathway is to facilitate faster public access to medicines. However, as the RIS notes, the actual impact on medicines availability and access may be limited because, in practice, after Medsafe approval, Pharmac funding is often required for this to be available at scale in our communities. And, of course, this bill doesn't address that. So while it may speed up part of the process and reduce costs for pharmaceutical companies, it may not have a big impact on patients. I guess we won't know until we see how it goes. It's critical that the Government clearly articulates the expected and tangible benefits of these changes, including which patient groups will be benefited. We look forward to having those conversations. One area where we do have concerns is the change of a technical advisory group into one where the appointees are appointed by the Minister of Health. That is an area where we will be focusing our scrutiny in select committee because that appears to create some possibility of conflicts of interest as well. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member's time has expired. HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. On behalf of the Green Party, I rise to speak on this piece of legislation that, strangely, we support as well. We have many things that we have concerns about, but, for this, we do agree that access to medicines is important. When I think about the challenges for Māori in access to vaccinations during COVID and the fact that inequalities did exist and the inequities were there, because we couldn't access the relevant medications. These types of changes will help all of us to benefit as Aotearoa New Zealand. I want to labour the point of support around how we can look at a multidisciplinary approach to the administration of medicines, and having nurse practitioners be able to work at top of scope for the delivery of medicines into community is important. With this legislation, we are looking forward to what the select committee process will bring, as we will be encouraging iwi Māori, Māori providers, and the various stakeholders to bring their voice into the select committee and inform the way which we will move forward as the Health Committee, cautious, as always, in terms of the way that we will look to analyse submissions as they come forward, because we are taking a safety approach in making sure that we do have the relevant safeguards in place. Patient access to medicines is important, but so is looking at the wider health system. We do have current barriers and challenges in the way that we need to take a population-based approach across the entire system. And so while we are looking at medicines in this part of the system, let's look at the entire system and the very deep challenges that we have within Health New Zealand and within primary care and in the way which we deliver secondary care as well. Now, medicines are only one part of that. Accessing medicines in a timely way is important, but if we can pull the ambulance back from the edge or the bottom of the cliff, then we can actually look to improve the lives of all New Zealanders across Aotearoa. Kia ora to my colleague Francisco. I want to recognise the workforce that is coming from overseas to support us in this time of crisis. Our Filipino nurses and those who are clinicians that come from overseas, because those skills that we have from overseas are kaimahi that come to Aotearoa to support us—whether it's in hospitals, primary care, or in aged care as well. Now, when we think about this legislation and safeguards, the Minister does have a lot of power in this space, and our forming of committees just through ministerial appointment also needs to be looked at through the select committee process. But the flexibility to be able to prescribe and to find medicines that have already been approved into other jurisdictions does provide some comfort and safety for us at the stage of the process. We do look forward to hearing from across the board in terms of community and patient voice—those who have been impacted on both the access issues and concerns as families and those who have sought care, but also those who are the prescribers. Can we find, across the workforce, their voice to come forward into the select committee process? Because we want to have regulations that safeguard patient care and also safeguard the workforce and those who are the prescribers to ensure that there are relevant protections in place but also open up access to a broad range of medicines that, maybe, we have not had access to here in Aotearoa New Zealand. On behalf of iwi Māori, we think that we are heavy users in the system of health, whether it's Health NZ services and whether it is out in community healthcare spaces and primary care. And so, of course, we need access to timely medicines that this legislation can bring forth. So, on behalf of the Green Party, we do stand in support and look forward to seeing what we can bring out in the Health Committee process. Kia ora. SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of this bill. This is a good, pragmatic bill that creates a new verification pathway, a faster option for getting approvals here in New Zealand. We've got two overseas trusted regulators who have approved it. Medsafe will not need to do a full assessment. The decision must be made within 30 days. It meets the promise in the coalition agreements. It'll help New Zealanders get faster access to medicines while keeping safety in place. I commend this bill to the House. SPEAKER: I call the Hon Jenny Marcroft. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you for the promotion as well. Thank you, Madam Speaker. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Under-Secretary. JENNY MARCROFT: I appreciate that. The Medicines Amendment Bill: I stand on behalf of New Zealand First in support of this piece of legislation, and I am very privileged to do so as well. The purpose of this bill is to increase patients' access to medicine. It does this by reducing some of the barriers to access currently that we see in the Medicines Act 1981. We have commitments with our coalition agreements, and it is a pleasure that all this side of the House is in agreement that this is a really vital piece of legislation to make that pathway to wellness so much easier for so many patients in New Zealand. We campaigned for the last two elections on tidying up the processes in Pharmac to make sure that there's increased funding but also that the pathway of procuring medicines and having them approved in this country is much quicker. This verification pathway that comes through this bill: the streamlined approach under which the medicines can be approved for distribution in New Zealand if they've been approved by two recognised overseas jurisdictions. New Zealand First recognises health as a critical and essential investment that reflects how New Zealand values its people. We see this as an investment in our people as opposed to a cost on society. So this bill will actually enable that increase in access to medicines for New Zealanders through that streamlined verification pathway for medicines. Why do we need this? We've had so many stories we've heard over the last number of years of people having to go overseas to get their medicines because they just weren't able to access them here in New Zealand, whether it's go to Australia or Malaysia or various countries around the world; people who have not been able to get well, who may have passed away because the whole process of getting access to modern medicines has not been available for them. This legislation will ensure that health and wellness is at the forefront in being able to access these medicines. Introducing a verification pathway for medicines approval in New Zealand is the purpose of this bill; updating prescribing settings as well to enable wider prescribing, enabling those in the health force workforce to actually work at top of scope. I think that's a very important change that this bill will make as well. Studies have shown that for every dollar spent on modern drugs, $3 to $19 is saved in the health system via things like reduced hospitalisation, so this is very sensible legislation. I'd just like to conclude my contribution with a quote from Malcolm Mulholland, who many in this House will know. He's advocated for patient voice in terms of getting access to medicines, and this is what he has said: 'There can be no greater legacy in politics than improving the health of our citizens.' On that note, I'd like to commend this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I call the Hon—no, not the honourable—Dr Hamish Campbell. Hon Member: Everyone's got a promotion tonight! ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I know; everyone's honourable. Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Thank you for the promotion. It is a great honour to stand and speak in support of the Medicines Amendment Bill in this first reading. It's great that we actually have agreement across the House on this piece of legislation, because I think this is just common sense. It creates a new verification pathway for medicines in in New Zealand. We've already traversed that a number of times in the House, but what are we going to find different that these other major countries haven't found? We're often using the same data that the pharmaceutical companies have submitted to the overseas regulators. They're resubmitting it here. It's unlikely that we're going to find any difference. Also it's great to be able to make sure we can empower our healthcare workers to be able to deliver medicines that everyday Kiwis need, so therefore I am happy to commend this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Debate interrupted.
Scoop
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Principles Of The Treaty Of Waitangi Bill — Second Reading
Press Release – Hansard Sitting date: 10 Apr 2025 PRINCIPLES OF THE TREATY OF WAITANGI BILL Second Reading Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Justice): I move, That the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill be now read a second time. Members of this House can still change their minds—[ A disturbance occurred in the gallery, and a member of the public was removed on the instruction of the Speaker. ] SPEAKER: Let me make it very clear: anyone else in here who thinks that's an acceptable intervention in the activities of this Parliament will be treated harshly by the officers of the law who are here. It's completely unacceptable. We live in a democracy. This is the place where opinions are given, not from the gallery. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Members of this House can still change their minds and send this bill onwards to a referendum of the people, and I ask that members listen carefully to understand the choice they'll be denying the New Zealand people if they oppose this bill. Five decades ago, this House passed the Treaty of Waitangi Act, saying that the Treaty had principles but failing to say what they were. And those principles, as a concept, are not going away. The National Party and New Zealand First commitment to review the principles will not get rid of them. The review will not touch the Treaty of Waitangi Act itself, and it will only review other bills with the help of Te Puni Kōkiri. With the unelected Parliament silent on the principles for 50 years, the unelected judges, the Waitangi Tribunal, and the public servants have defined them instead. They say the Treaty is a 'partnership between races'. They say one race has a special place in New Zealand. The effects of these principles have become more and more obvious lately. We've seen a separate Māori Health Authority—[ Interruption ] SPEAKER: Just stop! We're going to hear the balance of this speech and all others in silence. It's not a matter to be excited about. It's a parliamentary process. Everyone has the right to speak and be heard, and they will be today. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: We've seen a separate Māori Health Authority. We've seen resource management decisions held up for years awaiting cultural-impact assessments due to Treaty principles in the Resource Management Act. We've seen half the seats governing three waters infrastructure reserved for one-sixth of the population. We've seen public entities appoint two chief executives to represent each side of this so-called 'partnership between races'. And we've seen a history curriculum teach children to believe history is a simple story of victims and villains divided by their ancestry. Some will say that a Government can change these policies case by case. And, indeed, I'm proud to be part of a Government that is doing that. The problem is, though, that another Government can just as easily bring them back if the bad ideas behind these policies are not confronted. And that's why we see professional bodies, universities, the public service, and schools nurturing the divisive idea that the Treaty is a partnership, hoping it will grow again at some future time. The partnership principle tells us that Kiwis should be ranked by the arrival of their ancestors. We've seen it in recent weeks. Just one disgraceful example was the attack on my colleague Parmjeet Parmar by the dean of a law school for being a migrant who proudly chose this country. She faced no consequences for that, and it shows how low our country has sunk. The idea that your race matters is a version of a bigger problem. It's part of that bigger idea that our lives are determined— Rawiri Waititi: The Treaty doesn't mention anything by race. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —by things out of our control. And I hear the leader of Te Pāti Māori saying, 'Oh, it's not about race.' He named his party after a race. Of course you have a problem with race in this country under our current policies. They may have occurred, these problems, these ideas that determine our future. These events may have occurred before we were even born. We face a denial that we can make a difference in our own lives and that we have a right to do so by this old-fashioned primitive determinism that should have no place in a country that is founded, and lived in, by pioneers. We are all thinking—we are all valuing beings. We should all have 'ngā tikanga katoa rite tahi', the same rights and duties, just as the third article of te Tiriti itself says. And that's why the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill would finally define the principles in line with the Treaty itself, giving all Kiwis equal rights. And let me read those proposed principles because if anyone wants to vote against this bill in this House today, then let them explain specifically why they oppose the words in the bill. It says, 'Principle 1: The Executive Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and the Parliament of New Zealand has full power to make laws, … Principle 2: (1) The Crown recognises, and will respect and protect, the rights that hapū and iwi Māori had under the Treaty of Waitangi … at the time they signed it.', so long as those rights are extended to everyone who lives here or are set out in a Treaty settlement and, 'Principle 3: (1) Everyone is equal before the law. (2) Everyone is entitled, without discrimination, to—(a) the equal protection and equal benefit of the law; and (b) the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights.' People who oppose this bill should ask themselves, what is the best argument they have against these principles and are they prepared to say that argument out loud? And, if not, perhaps they should support the bill so the people of New Zealand can have a say at referendum. I now turn to the submissions from the select committee, and I'd like to thank the chair and most of the members of the committee. They heard 80 hours of submissions—nearly a record. However, submissions are not a referendum. If MPs believe that the bill should be passed depending on public opinion, they should front up, vote for the bill, and send it to an actual referendum, which is what the bill does. There are many bills that have attracted large numbers of opposing submissions and, yet, been very popular with the general public—the end of life choice and abortion law reform both had 90 percent of submissions against them at select committee but proved overwhelmingly popular with the public, and so it is with the principles I've just read out that, on average, enjoy support from the public by two to one when all New Zealanders are asked on an equal basis. Select committees, while they may not tell us about numbers, can, though, tell us about ideas. And I believe that this submission process has actually been very useful. Some argued against the bill's first principle that this Parliament has the full power to make laws. They said that the chiefs never ceded sovereignty when they signed the Treaty. What they cannot explain is how a society is supposed to work without clear laws that apply equally to all. The answer is that does not and cannot work. People who believe, for example, that an American county or an Indian band in Canada having limited jurisdiction and a limited territory is the same as shared sovereignty are not taking the issue seriously. Still others argue that maybe Parliament can make laws but not this law. What they're really saying is our constitutional future can be decided by the unelected but not the elected and certainly not the people in a referendum. Those are the fundamentally undemocratic propositions anyone opposing this bill is really signing up to. They do not trust the New Zealand people to determine their constitutional future, and I'm so proud to stand for the one party in this House that most certainly does. There were two objections that cancelled each other out. One said the bill isn't needed because Māori don't actually have special rights in New Zealand. Other objections said the bill is an abomination because it denies Māori equal rights. Which one is it? It can't be both. Well, the truth is that we are all equal deep down, but too many of our policies aim to treat people differently based on their ancestry. This is why we have to remove that idea that New Zealanders have different rights and are ranked by the arrival of their ancestors. A more interesting objective is that Māori have group rights to such things as language and culture. Some Māori have been told this bill will take away the mana of their reo and their tikanga, but that is simply untrue. This bill supports all people to cherish their taonga. If we're going to have Diwali, Lunar New Year, and the Highland games, of course we should have kapa haka. We have media in many languages. There's no reason not to have te reo Māori. The bill provides for that. We just don't need to divide the country in a 'partnership between races' to do it. Other critics say the bill must be wrong because the bureaucracy said so. Of course they do. If the bureaucrats got it right, we wouldn't need the bill in Parliament, but the problem is what the bureaucracy has invented in the last 40 years is contrary to equal rights in liberal democracy. Finally, some critics say that the debate is divisive. Well, I say it has revealed the division. I say it's revealed a sizeable minority of New Zealanders who oppose equal rights, liberal democracy, and treating each person with the same basic dignity. I want to end my speech with a quote from a Jewish man who wrote a book in Christchurch while he was hiding from Nazis in World War II. The book is The Open Society and its Enemies. It's been described as the most important book ever written in New Zealand. His name was Sir Karl Popper, and he said, 'The more we try to return to the heroic age of tribalism, the more surely do we arrive at the inquisition, the secret police, and a romanticised gangsterism. Beginning with the suppression of reason and truth, we must end with the most brutal and violent destruction of all that is human. There is no return to a harmonious state of nature. If we turn back, we must go the whole way. We must return to the beast. But if we wish to remain human, there is only one way, the way into the open society. We must go on into the unknown, the uncertain, and insecure, using what reason we may have to plan as well as we can for both security and freedom.' Members of the House and public of New Zealand, a free society takes hard work and uneasy conversations. I'm proud that my party has had the bravery, the clarity, and the patriotism to raise uneasy topics, and I challenge other parties to find those qualities in themselves and support this bill. We will continue to fight on for the truth that all Kiwis are equal. Āke, ake, ake. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Normally, when I rise in this House to speak on a bill, I say it's a great privilege to speak on the bill. That is not the case today. This is a grubby little bill, born of a grubby little deal. It has had a colossal—[ Interruption ] SPEAKER: Excuse me. I'll make it clear just once: the gallery do not interfere in the activities of Parliament. Another outburst like that and we'll clear the galleries—everyone will be going. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It has had a colossal impact on the fabric of our nation, and this bill will forever be a stain on our country. What I do take pride in is the way New Zealanders have come together over the last six months to say, loud and clear, 'This is not us; this is not Aotearoa New Zealand.' For 185 years, Māori and non-Māori have worked together to make progress. We honour those who have come before. We stand on their shoulders today. When I say 'we', I mean those on this side of the House—Labour, Te Pāti Māori, the Green Party—united in our determination, throughout this debate, to defeat this bill, to end the division that it has created, and to bring this country together. Today, National and New Zealand First join the opposition to this bill, but they can claim no victory, no virtue, and no principle; they get no credit for finally starting to fight the fire they helped to ignite. Today, their votes will fall on the right side of the ledger, but they will forever be on the wrong side of history when it comes to this bill. Not one National MP should walk out of this debating chamber today with their head held high, because, when it comes to this debate, they led nothing, they stopped nothing, and they stood for nothing, unlike the 300,000 New Zealanders who stood up to be counted when it comes to this bill; all those who marched in the streets together—Māori, non-Māori, ethnic communities, young and old—saying, 'This is not New Zealand, and this will not define who we are as a country.' This is a bill based on a mythology—a mythology that is far too easily turned into outright lies: the myth of Māori special privilege. Life expectancy seven years lower than for other New Zealanders is not special privilege. Being twice as likely to die from cancer as others is not special privilege. A higher rate of childhood hospitalisation, 40 percent of Māori living in the highest areas of deprivation compared to just 10 percent of Europeans—these are not signs of privilege. But too often these statistics are twisted to suggest that Māori are wanting the Crown to save them. I've been up and down the country in recent years speaking to Māori all over New Zealand, and that could not be further from the truth. How ignorant, how blind, and how wrong those statements are. Māori have been very clear: what they're asking for is partnership, for the Crown to walk alongside them and to embrace by-Māori, for-Māori solutions. Māori want to do the mahi themselves, and they want the Crown to stop acting as an impediment to that. I say it's time we listened and it's time we acted on that. When it comes to Māori politics and politicians, I have found that there are two approaches in common, and I spoke about these before the last election: playing the race card, spreading the myth of Māori special privilege, talking about one law for all, and playing on people's fears; but on the other side is the middle ground, keeping quiet and, too often, watering down policy so as not to be seen as too pro-Māori. I said before the election, and I'll say it again today: I reject both of those approaches, because when Māori thrive in New Zealand, all of us benefit, all of us will thrive, and non-Māori have nothing to fear from Māori getting ahead here in New Zealand. Once again, I say to the members opposite in the National Party, where are the voices like Christopher Finlayson, Doug Graham, Jim Bolger, Jenny Shipley, John Key, Bill English, who were proud of the Treaty partnership, who embraced concepts like co-governance, and they didn't call it divisive. Our work, in Government, which has been the subject of much debate on that side of the House, actually built on the foundations that were set by successive Governments, both Labour and National. It is that history of progress that today's National Party have turned their backs against. In my lifetime, we have changed as a nation for the better—from one that punished kids for speaking te reo Māori to one that embraces te reo Māori in all of our classrooms; from one that ignored our history to one that teaches all of our kids in all of our schools Aotearoa New Zealand's history; from one that turned a blind eye to the wrongs of the past to one that makes amends and commits not to repeating the same mistakes again. Until today, that is. Christopher Luxon called Te Tiriti o Waitangi 'a little experiment'. Winston Peters claims that Māori are not indigenous to Aotearoa. In fact, as I was re-reading my notes from before the election, I was reminded of a quote by a New Zealand First candidate in this most recent election campaign, which I'm going to quote directly from: 'Cry if you want to, we don't care. You pushed it too far. We are the party with the cultural mandate and the courage to cut out your disease and bury you permanently.' That was a New Zealand First candidate speaking about Māori in New Zealand. It made me sick to my stomach then, and it still does now, because te Tiriti is not 'a little experiment'; it is a bold promise and a bold vision. It is not a source of division; it is what binds us together. Yes, it is a partnership, a structure, something to work towards, a promise to uphold, because, as I've said, when Māori thrive, all of Aotearoa New Zealand thrives. Over 185 years, we've worked together to fulfil the promise of te Tiriti—the good and the bad—and there has been far too much bad in that work. We have discussed, debated, and argued about the meaning of te Tiriti. We've argued about what the visionary rangatira who signed it had intended. That 185 years of history, of debate, of discussion, of argument, of progress, informs how we interpret te Tiriti today, and no member of this House simply gets to wipe all of that 185 years of history away to suit their own purposes. The Treaty of Waitangi is not just history, it's not just ink on paper; it's a living promise. Today, on this side of the House, we honour that promise. We commit to continuing to strive to do better, to bring people together, to move our nation forward. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] We must work together for the wellbeing of all, work together in partnership. Coming together does not mean being the same. It does not mean thinking the same. It does not mean acting the same. It means embracing our differences but working together to find common ground so that we can all move forward together. So let's finally consign this grubby little bill to the scrapheap of history, where it can take its place alongside the other darker acts of this House that have also been consigned to our history. Let's instead move forward together. Let's find a positive, lighter path, where we can bring the country together, where we cannot play on prejudice but seek to reconcile our differences, where we can celebrate our history—the positives of it—and recognise the ugly parts for what they were and commit to doing better. This debate has not been helpful for the fabric of Aotearoa New Zealand. It is well and truly time for it to be over. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): The people have spoken and like them, the Green Party opposes this Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill. I have never felt so much FOMO than that when I was unable to be working and was mostly confined to my home and felt the kaha, the wairua, the beautiful energy of the hīkoi all around the country and the hīkoi to this place, te Whare Pāremata. Tēnā koutou e te whānau. Tēnā tēnā tātou katoa. I was so inspired by your beautiful kotahitanga energy that I ran and found my tino rangatiratanga flag and took a photo in my backyard as me trying to grab any contribution to feel like I could be a part of the movement that the people so brilliantly created off the back of this miserable piece of little bill. That backyard photo went a little bit viral, but nowhere near as viral as the haka that happened in this place. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] It is perhaps ironic then that this is the first and only chance that I get to speak to this bill, but I will be using my space today mostly to amplify the voices of the submitters. After all, that is what a second reading speech will most normally do. This House will and should hear repeatedly today that 90 percent of the submissions oppose—and that's from 307,000 submissions; record-breaking submissions to the Justice Committee—this bill. Also, a record-breaking 80 percent of the oral submissions also oppose this bill, and that is also from 529 oral submissions. The people spoke. There was one clear message: Toitū Te Tiriti. Part of the reason why the people were not fooled at all by this bill is because we now have generations of understanding that Te Tiriti was always a dream from mine and your ancestors—the promise of peoples to take the best possible care of each other. That is an iconic kōrero from Bishop Manuhuia Bennett, which actually needs to be the understanding of where we are going to. We can take even further the voice of one of the submitters, Dayle Takitimu, who said, '[We assert that Te Tiriti] is [a] core agreement that affirms [the] place to belong and a place to stand for everyone in Aotearoa'. We can also look at the incredible poetry of another submitter, Karlo Mila, who outlines perfectly the vision for Aotearoa, for our mokopuna to come. Karlo says, 'The answer is te Tiriti, not separatist exclusion. It's the fair terms of inclusion, an ancestral strategy for harmony, a covenant of cooperation. It's how we live ethically on land that was never ceded.' The Green Party is proud to have always affirmed the mana motuhake, the tino rangatiratanga, the self-determination of iwi and hapū guaranteed by Te Tiriti. We had a dig around. We did a bit of research and what we found—which I know that the pushers of this bill did not anticipate—was that there has not been another bill with a record-breaking number of submissions to select committee that was met with such overwhelming power of opposition. I am so proud once again to highlight the people have spoken and they have spoken clearly and strongly. The people are not fooled by the ACT Party trying to ignore the injustice and inequity that has seen, for example, that Māori are three times more likely to be arrested and convicted of a cannabis-related crime than non-Māori, but let us be clear, for doing the same thing. So this is what we need to point out: three times more likely to be arrested and convicted for doing the same thing. The ACT party, I challenge them to release their myth of special Māori treatment and find their equity bone, to find their equity analysis, and to ignore their myth of Māori privilege and find their equity analysis deep within their bones. I implore them so they do not bring any more embarrassing bills like this to the House. Te Tiriti is forever, and that's what we have heard and that's what I will say again, and again. But what we know is that this Crown has not yet actually upheld its promise, its side of taking care of each other. Again, we can go to the words of Karlo Mila in the second part of her passage that I read out earlier. She says, 'But we watch political parties sow seeds of disunity using disingenuous history. Harnessing hate speech, and the haka of destiny. Scapegoating vulnerable enemies, sharing just a joke fantasies of blowing up ministries targeting ethnic minorities.' This was an incredible opportunity for the Prime Minister who is not even here receiving the harm— Hon Member: Point of order. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: I take that back. SPEAKER: Withdraw and apologise. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: I withdraw and apologise. It would have been a fantastic opportunity to see the leaders across all of our parties be here— SPEAKER: I'm sorry, that's the same line. Move on. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: OK, I'll move on. Where are our leaders listening to us today? SPEAKER: No, no. You can't do that. The member's speech will be terminated if it doesn't come back to point. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. Speakers' rulings make it very clear that there's a convention not to mention a member's absence, but there is an exception to that where it is a particularly important moment. This is a particularly important moment where hundreds of thousands of people have made a submission, and one member in particular has chosen not to be here. SPEAKER: Actually, Dr Webb, you've just exacerbated the problem, and I'd advise you not to push that too much further. Marama Davidson, return to the basis of your speech without reference to anybody else in this House. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: I no longer need to. I do want to take a moment to acknowledge the movement and I will also take this time—I think it's appropriate—to acknowledge the incredible Hinewhare Harawira, who lies right at this time at Whakapara. As her whānau says, she was an unstoppable force in the drive of tino rangatiratanga. I think it is really appropriate that we acknowledge her particular presence and passing in this House today, and that Hinewhare and so many others are just part of generational work that has amounted to the huge uprising from a diverse range of people from diverse communities who have said very, very clearly, 'We are not falling for what this bill is trying to do.' We have now got generations of examples of us working together and upholding Te Tiriti, seeing the value, and the benefits, and the beauty in the vision of taking good care of each other, working together at the grassroots level and understanding they knew what this bill was trying to do. They could sniff the division a mile away and they came to the Justice Committee, they marched the streets, they signed petitions, they wrote postcards, and they said very clearly, 'Toitū Te Tiriti. Te Tiriti is forever, and we are not fooled by the attempt to divide us.' In fact, there was a particular moment in the select committee submissions where we even had an ACT MP attempt to drive a migrant away from centring Te Tiriti, where the Muslim community leader Anjum Rahman was asked if she was comfortable—by that ACT MP—with new migrants potentially being left with different rights to Māori. She said, 'I reject your framing. I reject your question. This is a way to try and sow division between communities and we see you.' is what she said. She said, 'When you go to ethnic minority communities and try and promote division between our community and theirs, we hear you when you say, 'Oh, your community suffers racism too, and [they get] special treatment.' ' And she said in her submission Māori did not get 'special treatment. They [did not get] privileges. They are getting the rights that were promised to them, and the help that should have been upheld in a very minuscule way.' I am so pleased that the people came and spoke. We are proud to stand here today to oppose the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill. Toitū Te Tiriti. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The outcome of the vote today has been known since the Treaty principles bill was introduced. National has consistently said we'll not support it into law, fundamentally because we regard the bill, which seeks to impose a particular interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi by simple majority and referendum, as a crude way to handle a very sensitive topic. National believes in equal citizenship and equal opportunity for all New Zealanders, and we hold that there are better ways to defend those principles than through this bill. So it was clear, from the beginning, that the Treaty principles bill was not going to pass. And yet it still generated 300,000 submissions. Of those, more than 16,000 New Zealanders wanted to come and talk to the select committee, and more than 500 actually did. In the meantime, some 40,000 people marched to Parliament to oppose it, and it's dominated two summers. So what are we to make of this? Clearly, it shows that many people feel passionately about the topic, and I want to acknowledge the effort so many people put in to expressing their views. Some of the submissions were truly remarkable. It's equally true that the bill has provided a convenient vehicle for political campaigns, on all sides. And that is politics. We'll hear all sorts of hyperbole today, as we already have from the Leader of the Opposition, about how terrible it is for National to allow this bill to even be introduced. That is just froth and spray. Coalitions require compromises. National opposed the bill and would have preferred it not to have gone forward. ACT wanted to have the bill passed into law. None of us got what we wanted. That is life under MMP. Our country is not so fragile that we can't withstand a debate about the role of the Treaty. And we certainly won't take lectures from Labour about division. I'll never forget seeing Willie Jackson on TV casually declaring that democracy in New Zealand had changed, as his Government was pushing an agenda of co-governance on public servants. And all of us were wondering what on earth he meant and when we had discussed it, and when the people of New Zealand had been asked whether they wanted their democracy changed. National opposes this bill, but we do not oppose the open and frank discussion about the Treaty of Waitangi in our laws and within the context of a modern democracy. That discussion is alive and well and will continue. The critical thing is that we try our best to conduct that conversation with good grace. We live in a turbulent world, with examples every day of how societies can tear themselves apart. For all our faults and our disagreements, we hold things together very well in this country, and I have every confidence that we can continue to find a way through. Parliament first referred to the principles of the Treaty in the 1970s, but never defined them. The courts stepped into that vacuum, as we know, and over the past 30 years, principles of the Treaty such as the concept of partnership have been given greater weight. The interpretations of the court are not gospel; they should be debated. But if enacted, the Treaty principles bill would have short-circuited that debate. Parliament would simply have set down its interpretation of the Treaty and then sought a majority of the public to confirm that in the referendum. That would have, at the stroke of a pen, unwound more than 30 years of jurisprudence. And as I said at the first reading of the bill, there will be a wide variety of views within Māori, just as there are amongst any other group. But those opposed to the changes would likely conclude that fundamental change was being imposed upon them by a majority if it were to pass, and that would risk stoking an already keen sense of grievance. That's why National hasn't supported this bill. We continue to believe there are better ways to address the many legitimate questions about the role of the Treaty in our democracy today—to progress with the numerous specific changes that we're making case by case, issue by issue. The guiding principal is that, in our efforts to honour Treaty of Waitangi commitments, Treaty settlements, and to acknowledge tangata whenua, we should never lose sight of the basic expectations of people living in a modern, democratic society, such as equal voting rights, equality before the law, and, broadly speaking, an equal say in matters affecting their lives and in the world around them. There can be a tension between those two things, between honouring commitments to Māori flowing from the Treaty and the basic expectations of equality in a modern democracy. This is a tension that we can't just gloss over and ignore. Our proposition is that as a nation, we should be serious in our commitment to the first, but, in doing so, should be careful never to lose sight of, or drift too far from, the second. People, ultimately, have choices: where to live and where to invest. For our country to continue to succeed, those basic expectations of equality before the law must remain. This is not a topic, I don't think, that lends itself to neat, tidy, single solutions; it has to be worked through issue by issue. That's why we've reasserted the principle that healthcare should be delivered on the basis of need alone. That's why we're pushing back against the previous Government's move against equal voting rights in local government. It's why we've unwound co-governance arrangements in core public services and a separate Māori health authority. It's why we've also taken the unusual step of introducing legislation to overturn the marine and coastal area Act—a decision in the Court of Appeal. We're now considering following the Supreme Court's decision in terms of what steps are necessary, if any. That's why we're embarking on the challenging task of reviewing the Treaty references in existing legislation, to ensure that they're clearer about what Parliament does and doesn't mean—or to remove the Treaty references if there is no clear reason for having them. None of this is easy. At the same time, we're committed to continuing and completing the Treaty settlements process that was begun in the 1990s—around two-thirds of the settlements have been completed; many under previous National Governments. It has been a bipartisan effort across many decades and has involved thousands of Māori up and down the country, studying history, negotiating, forming new structures to manage settlements. Successfully, we have reestablished strong financial bases, confidence, and ambition. The settlements have never been an exercise in achieving perfection. Many Māori complainants will rightly point out that the settlement payments reflect only a fraction of what was lost, and that's true. Equally, the process requires today's iwi to spend sums running to the billions, and to agree to bespoke arrangements in specific places, often because of events going back as far as 180 years or earlier. So Treaty settlements require grace on both sides, as well. Treaty settlements and the continued substantial investments in preserving te reo, Māori culture, and expanding their reach alongside investment in a great variety of Māori solutions to the challenges we face are all part of the effort we make as a country to address the injustices of the past, to recognise our unique history and blended culture, and to build a better future. And we're proud of those efforts. And this Government will never lose sight of the reality that the things most Māori want are the same as most other New Zealanders want: they want a strong economy that will deliver jobs and incomes that will sustain our standard of living, they want decent housing, they want to feel safe in their communities, for their kids to have access to a great education that will set them up to succeed in the modern world, and they want to have access to quality healthcare when they get sick. The reality is, in each of those areas, Māori, on average, currently have worse outcomes than the average New Zealander, and we want to work together with Māori New Zealanders to change that. The work we're doing to fast track consents for infrastructure and new industries across the country are designed to raise income for Māori and all New Zealanders alike. And that's why Māori businesses are keen to be part of it. The effort to restore law and order and deal with truancy will help Māori most, because they are more likely to be victims of crime and to not attend school regularly. The amazing progress we've made to reduce smoking rates and to increase immunisation rates will help Māori most. When we think of a referendum in 2026—[ Interruption ] SPEAKER: Sorry, that member can take herself out of the House if that continues. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. When we think of a referendum in 2026, our preference is for the election to be a referendum on this Government's success, or otherwise, in making progress on those massive challenges. And I have every confidence that we, together, will make genuine progress in these areas. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill. I acknowledge that our leader, the Deputy Prime Minister, is wanting to be here but unfortunately is boarding a plane as we speak. I'm honoured to be able to give this contribution. I want to reflect on what it is we are here to debate. Despite the absence of any judge or academic being able to clearly define the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, the ACT Party believed it could. Despite what has been suggested in the purpose of the bill, legislation would have taken us back into the courts, which is the last thing this country needs. To put this issue before the courts is exactly what we needed to avoid. Alarmingly, it appears that in the political posturing this bill has brought to this House, no thought was given to the turmoil should a referendum fail. We saw the 'car-koi' when it was clearly known that the bill would not pass, the political noise and upset that it created around communities—all this posturing and political point-scoring that distracted us from the real work we need to do as a nation. We have heard that in the forming of a coalition Government, there are compromises. There have been compromises, and New Zealand First knows that, because we have been part of those coalition agreements on many occasions. We know that we can agree to disagree on many aspects. Even if we agree, which we don't, and even if it were to pass—and it won't—a subsequent Parliament could change the definitions and so the cycle would continue. The unintended consequence of this legislation—something that does not need legislation. What would the courts do with this legislation? It is plain wrong to take the responsibility of determining the role of Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the highest court in the land to the judiciary, which would have been the outcome of this bill. Even Sir Kenneth Keith, the lawyer's lawyer, pointed out that it is undesirable for constitutional issues to get settled by courts. If we look back to our history, Sir Apirana Ngata was a strong advocate— Rawiri Waititi: Oh, here we go again. Hon CASEY COSTELLO: —for protecting the Treaty from being ratified by Parliament. I find it abhorrent that the mention of Sir Apirana Ngata's name is treated with such contempt in this House. [ Interruption ] SPEAKER: All right. The balance of this speech will be heard in silence. There are members down there who have been pushing it pretty hard who won't be staying for the balance of the debate if they keep on interfering. Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Let us do what is right for us as a nation. When I last spoke on this bill at its first reading, I talked of the dignity of this House. I talked of the obligation we all have in this House to ensure that this esteemed debating chamber is not censored. There is nothing to fear from challenging ideas and presenting different positions. This House is strong enough to withstand fractious debate as long as we protect the duty we have to honour the rules that guide us and respect the decisions that are made. New Zealand First may not support this bill being brought to this House, but we support our democracy and know we can challenge the status quo and debate something contentious. That is the democracy we must protect. The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill is one such contentious debate. It seeks to legislatively define the principles, the premise being that this bill will fill a silence on who we are as a nation, it would deliver unity, and resolve the debate in perpetuity. As I've said, perhaps that is not what we would achieve. New Zealand First has the longest uninterrupted position on the place the Treaty of Waitangi has in our collective identity as a nation. It is in the signing of this Treaty that our nation was formed. It started our journey and forged our identity. It is through the forming of our nation that we came together as a people over time, not instantaneously on 6 February 1840. We had much to resolve. We still do. Our iwi at the time did not consider themselves unified as one people, and in ceding sovereignty, no impact was immediately felt. In fact, very little changed, as our history will attest, immediately after the Treaty was signed. But we did change. This Parliament was established; laws were passed, and our great country flourished. One nation, one flag, one people—that is who we are. New Zealand First has been challenged. I have been challenged as to why this bill is not supported. Our message is simple. The foundation of our country was the Treaty that brought us together, not principles that were loosely fashioned in an effort to expedite settlement processes and divisive interactions between Māori and the Crown. Defining principles is not a debate that takes us forward or brings us together. To take us forward, we need to understand in each legislation what the obligation is that we owe to each other as citizens to give effect to the intentions of each law. In particular, how democratic Governments respond to issues raised by Māori—not the courts or tribunals, but by Māori to their elected representatives. What will deliver the outcomes needed to benefit our communities? That is what New Zealand First has committed to delivering, not entrenching a reinvention of the Treaty and what it means to New Zealand but providing a clear path forward to a better nation. We will deliver a pathway to economic prosperity for iwi to allow them to be unshackled from a narrative of grievance. I have spent years defending our rights as New Zealanders to be treated respectfully and equally before the law. Whatever journey brought us to this nation, we are owed the same rights in this House as a duty to ensure that is what our laws provide. We do not need new legislation in this space. We need to clarify, simplify, and verify our existing laws. To do this, we need to recognise and respect an honest account of our history. Importantly, an honest account of our history will make sure we are not oppressed by the racism of low expectations. When we can look to our tūpuna for what they achieved, we can silence the narrative that we are a nation of two peoples. When we look to our tūpuna, we can understand what personal responsibility means, what honour and dignity means, what sacrifice and hard work means. We can be aspirational, not divisive. This is the legacy that is to be honoured. I have spoken at the first reading of this bill about New Zealand First leader and Deputy Prime Minister the Rt Hon Winston Peters' reverence in speaking about our great Māori leaders who forged the path for a better New Zealand. Sir Apirana Ngata, Sir Peter Buck, Sir Māui Pōmare, Sir James Carroll all shared the position that there were no principles to the Treaty, and this remains New Zealand First's position. It is under the shared knowledge and understanding of our history that New Zealand First has remained committed to the purpose of the Treaty. As Dame Whina Cooper said, we signed the Treaty to become one people. We cannot allow the Treaty to be weaponised, and we cannot allow it to take a place that will forever position us as New Zealanders in conflict with each other as a result. That is the very antithesis of what was intended by the bill. This Parliament must hold fast to our democracy and retain supremacy over the direction we take as a country. New Zealand First knows this means clarifying our existing legislation. New legislation that entrenches the definition of the principles is not the solution for our country. It is not an end position. It would be a launching platform for those who gain political relevance by driving a narrative of victimhood in the absence of doing the hard work to improve outcomes. New Zealand First is the party of practical action. We know what New Zealanders are calling for and it is not more noise but a pathway to First World wages, top class education, a warm, dry home, and access to healthcare when they need it. We talk much in the House about what divides us—our quantum of Māori, whether we have a vanilla lens, or who is qualified to speak for who. That is what oppresses us. That is what deprives our future generations of achieving their potential. It is time to put this bill to rest. We have work to be done and serious decisions to be made. New Zealand First is up for the challenges that are ahead. We know we need to work effectively together and how important it is that Parliament is respected. If New Zealand First believed this bill had merit, we would have supported it. We do not. New Zealand First does not commend this bill to the House. SPEAKER: Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke—split call. HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Some of our greatest trees fell on this journey. From the West, [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] o Te Pāti Māori, Tariana Turia. To the East, [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] This speech has been the most daunting speech I've ever had to write, and I've said, 'Oh no, what am I going to say now?' How are we supposed to voice the 270,000 written submissions, the 13,600 oral submissions, the 300,000 signatures on the petition, and the biggest hikoi, with 100,000 footsteps, marching to Parliament? How do we piece this all together in a five-minute speech? Here's how: we're not going to talk about the Treaty principles bill today. This bill was an undebatable and a non-negotiable debate, and the whole world knows our view on it. The real issue is not this bill, nor is it doing a haka or practising our indigenous customs in Parliament. The real problem is that this institution—this House—has only ever recognised one partner, one culture, and one language from one Treaty. When will the rules of this House acknowledge the laws of this land: tikanga and Te Tiriti o Waitangi? That is the real question of privilege here. At our darkest hour, we could have chosen to fight this, but we chose to survive this. This bill hasn't been stopped; this bill has been absolutely annihilated. Aotearoa New Zealand made it clear to our country that it does not support this bill. We are not divided, but united, with 90 percent of our country's submissions saying no. Why would we even entertain the 8 percent divisive rhetoric that this bill tries to achieve, and waste $6 million worth of taxpayers' money when that could have been given and spent on proper food for our tamariki? It was the voices from Times Square, New York, to Kaikohe; the streets of Oxford to Ngāruawāhia; the Waitangi Tribunal; the art on kākahu; the anonymous person who sponsored thousands of Te Tiriti books; the hundreds of submissions, from Whatawhata to Whangārei; and the call for unity with hui-ā-motu across the country. We could write hundreds of books on the oral submissions and their gems spoken from people like Tā Timoti Kāretu, Dr Kalo Mila, Maia Te Hira, and more, and on the rangatahi from Te Aupōuri who carried the banner all the way from Te Rerenga Wairua to the forecourt. This ignited an emotion that echoed with all walks of life, all races, all ages, and all genders across the world. Just remember, it was their voices—their powerful voices—that engaged to drown out this bill. So where to next? These past two years have been completely about survival. This next chapter needs to be about steps to thriving, and our road map to our next destination has never been so clear. For us to thrive, our job over the next few months will be to create bills, policies, and legislation to remove significant barriers that disallow Māori from accessing their basic rights—not privileges. Aotearoa hou isn't a fantasy. It's a place where there is unity, and the road map has no roadworks on it and it doesn't stop us from accessing our basic rights, like proper healthcare without a two-week wait. It's not having to decide whether to learn our language with student debt. It's being able to come home to build without having to wait three years for the Māori Land Court. It's Māori owning the first-ever supermarket to break down the supermarket duopoly. It's being able to swim in your tupuna awa, not chemical quarries. It's 14 Māori seats in Parliament. It's not having a five-year waiting list to enrol your tamariki in kōhanga. It's a place of having 4,507 Māori tamariki coming out of State care. It's having Maunga Kahurānaki back for its uri. This is tino rangatiratanga—control over our daily decisions that we make. Brick by brick, we will move from surviving to thriving. Ka mate, ka mate! Ka ora, ka ora! Ka mate te pire! Ka ora te iwi Māori! We had two choices: to live or to die. We chose to live. Ka ora tonu tātou āke ake ake! TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Mr Speaker, te iwi Māori, tangata Tiriti—that'll teach him. The Treaty of Waitangi Principles Bill has been an emotional rollercoaster. I know that for many of the people who made their voices heard, they didn't have the time or the money or the energy to give, and yet they showed up in droves. The whole process was so difficult because at every juncture in this journey, we gave them an opportunity to change their minds. We battled in the select committee, at every single meeting, 'OK, New Zealand First and National Party, let's get rid of the bill, then, if you don't support it so much.', and those opportunities were turned down. It was a privilege to absorb all the knowledge and the wisdom from all the people who came to talk to us, from Ani Mikaere, to Vincent O'Malley, to the Hon Chris Finlayson. I felt so much shame and so much sadness in many of those submissions, as we had iwi come and talk to us—some so angry they were shaking. They couldn't even articulate the trauma that this whole process has rehashed. This was an example of Parliament sticking the knife in again, and again, and again. I was fighting for my life in the select committee. I remember very tense conversations even amongst Opposition parties, because there is more than one way to skin a cat and there is more than one way to kill a bill, and we all had different ideas, but we all knew that this needed to go in the bin. So I want to acknowledge, Duncan, Tracey, Ginny, and Tākuta for all of the mahi that we did representing the kotahitanga that our people want to see and deserve—and behind closed doors; hard, methodical, genuine mahi behind closed doors. As satisfying as it would be to say a massive 'shame', I will leave it with a whakataukī that one of my tūpuna from Ngāti Awa said. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] I want to give a special mihi to all of my colleagues who have put in the mahi. We collected 13,000 signatures. We collected 640 postcards. We went into schools, we went into touch tournaments, we went to community hui, and we also went into the clubs and collected submissions. I also want to acknowledge my friend and colleague Steve Abel for being my tag team partner in all of the submissions. Steve represents a generation of people who were not lucky enough to be taught about Te Tiriti in schools but whose earnest dedication to learning and to fighting beside iwi to stop the ransacking of our coastline, our forests, and our whenua is what made him realise that our interests, tangata Tiriti, and te iwi Māori are not different. They are the same. So to every tangata Tiriti who made their voices heard and said that that little man does not represent your views, kia ora to you. I would like to acknowledge Eru Kapa-Kingi, Riana Te Ngahue, and Luke Fitzmaurice-Brown for bringing the kōrero to TikTok, bringing it to the new generation, to understand what the conversation meant and that their voices were important. I want to thank the Zanes, the Bloody Samoans, the Rawhitiroas, and the Shamias for bringing this conversation to the people and making it accessible. E te iwi, the fight is not over despite their crocodile tears. We still have a Government that is willing to use our mana as a cheap bargaining tool. Despite what the New Zealand First member has just told us, they are the ones who want to remove 28 general Treaty clauses across legislation. That is disgraceful. They are the ones who want to introduce the fast track bill, which will ride roughshod over important Treaty rights for our whenua. Attacks on indigenous people everywhere are happening right now. This is not unique to Aotearoa. This is part of a coordinated plan to undermine indigenous people everywhere. But I say to my first-nation brothers and sisters in Australia, as I do to the Palestinians who are having bombs dropped over their heads in Gaza right now, we stand together. They will not win. They have deep pockets but we have the people power and we will not be quiet, and this is a valuable lesson to leave our Tiriti alone. Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the now former chair of the hard-working Justice Committee, I wanted to focus my contribution today on the process that the committee went through in considering this bill. As I do so, I would like to acknowledge the work of the clerks—[ Interruption ] SPEAKER: OK, just hold it there. Some of the conversations that are going on now need to stop. Hon JAMES MEAGER: I'd like to acknowledge the work of the clerks and the Select Committee Services team on this bill. It was an interesting test case juggling three different clerks throughout this process—and the number of staff that we had helping us—but at all points they were upfront, they were clear in their work, and they provided consistent advice, sometimes in the face of quite significant severe personal reflections from members of the committee. So I wanted to acknowledge the work of the clerks and team on this bill. In doing so, can I also acknowledge the work of the committee, and MPs on the committee, who generally worked collegially and collectively in this work. It's helpful, I think, to point to Appendix B in the select committee report for the record of decisions made by the committee. I think the public should look at that appendix and should analyse it for the consistency and the amount of unanimity that actually existed in the committee. Most of the decisions in the committee, if not all of them, bar a few, were made unanimously on things like the length of submissions, the number of hours of submissions we would hear, how to treat form and template submissions, how we would set criteria for what submissions would be heard. They were all decisions that were agreed to unanimously by the committee, and it showed the collegiality and what can happen when members of the committee work together well. I did want to provide the public some reassurances after the past few weeks and some of the information that's been going around there; I want to reassure the public that every submission that has been made to the committee has been read by someone. It has been read by an official in the ministry, and the themes from those submissions integrated into the departmental report. I would encourage anyone out there who is interested in this process to read the departmental report. It is rich in information, it is rich in content, and it reflects the incredibly hard work done by the ministry officials in reading over 300,000 submissions and synthesising them into that document. Every submission that has been made to the committee has been available to all members of Parliament—not just those on the committee—at all times. I wanted to clear that up. There has been some misinformation out there that members have not had access to those submissions. Again, if you go through the record, you can see that we agreed to the process of accessing submissions from the clerks team. All members agreed to that, and it is very disappointing to see suggestions that suggest otherwise out there. Every submission that has been made to the committee that meets the criteria set by the committee will be published and tabled and released publicly for everybody to see so that they can see for themselves the content of those 300,000 submissions. Again, the committee has reported the bill back because there is no further work to do. There were some suggestions that this has been outrageously rushed back into the House, but following the end of 80 hours of submissions, over 529 people making oral submissions, at the end, all of the work programme has been completed. Members all agreed unanimously that no changes to the bill needed to be made. They all agreed that the Parliamentary Council Office did not need to draft a revision-tracked version. They all agreed that the report back would come soon. They all had three chances to consider the draft select committee report, and at the end every single member on that committee voted for it to be reported back to the House. So that needs to be placed on the record for the reassurance of the public. There is a lot to go through when it comes to considering what we went through on this bill. I wanted to touch on a few things, a few lessons, maybe, learnt by the Parliament if this was to ever happen again. In early January, the select committee was called back somewhat early from some people's holidays to deal with the issue of the parliamentary website crashing. Now, I want to provide some reassurances to the public that at no time has there been any suggestion of foreign interference or scurrilous behaviour in that process. It is simply a matter of what we all did throughout our careers and throughout university and school of leaving it to the last minute and the website not being able to handle the volume that came through on the very last day. That is it. No conspiracies, no interference—that's what happened. I think we learnt a lesson there in terms of setting the time for responding to submissions. Generally, submissions are set to be due by 11:59 p.m. at night. That, of course, meant that any issues with the process were unable to be answered by the select committee team and by the parliamentary team. So, moving forward, I think on bills of significance we should consider setting those deadlines to be the middle of the day so that people have a chance to deal with any of those issues. Questions remain throughout the public about how easy or how hard it was to make a submission, and there were complaints sent through to my email and to our office about the fact that it is a very straightforward process to make a submission. And I think there are questions to the House about whether or not there are restrictions put in place. I actually think it's a good thing that it is as simple as possible for the public to make submissions to the select committee. All you need to do is go to the Parliament website, enter your submission, and it is done. Alternatively, write in and write it in hard copy. There are questions around whether or not you need to provide ID and whether or not you can do them on other behalf of other people. I will put a thought out there—if you are wanting to make a submission to the Parliament as an individual or as an organisation, do that on your own steam. Do not rely on third-party organisations or third-party activists or political parties who go out there and want to collect your data and harvest your data and purport to provide your submission on your behalf. If you want to make a submission to this Parliament, use the process that is made available. It is easy, it is straightforward, it makes the clerk's job incredibly straightforward and easy and it means we do not run into issues of people having their submissions counted or not counted in terms of them being form submissions. I wanted to touch on the purpose of the select committee process because members today and throughout the process have talked about the numbers and talked about it being a record-breaking achievement. The purpose of the select committee process is not a poll. It is not a petition. It is not a referendum. It is not a platform for advocacy. It is a process to allow legislators in this House the opportunity to scrutinise legislation, to offer improvements, and to make amendments. That is what it is for. It is not an advocacy platform, it is not a performance piece, and members across the hall can laugh all they want, but if you are a parliamentarian and you are committed to the process of scrutinising legislation put forward by the executive, by the Government, you will take that process seriously. It is not a popularity contest. It is not a numbers game, and comments like it is 'record-breaking' are very unhelpful to that process. In the time remaining available, I want to clarify some remaining pieces of misinformation that may be sitting out there in the public, and this is primarily a message for parliamentarians and how they conduct themselves within select committees: partial disclosure of incomplete information which is designed for political gain and results in confusion and anger in the public is deeply unhelpful for our democratic process. We have had to spend a significant amount of time and resource, including in the Clerk's Office, to deal with that misinformation being spread by members of Parliament, deliberately, for political purposes. So let me state once and for all, for the record: the appendix in the select committee report outlines every decision made by the select committee up until the deliberation phase. And there is only one side which has been consistent in our desire to ensure that people have had their say and their voices are heard throughout the entire process. Tamatha Paul is correct, they did try at every opportunity to stop people from having their say. We voted the bill through the select committee as per the coalition agreement; we did not oppose the open discussion. We called for public submissions and allowed the public to have their say; the Opposition voted for the bill to be reported back on the same day it was introduced to the select committee. We were the ones that called for oral submissions to be held; the Opposition called for only written submissions and to prevent every single oral submission from being held. That is part of the record. We were the ones that instructed the ministry to prepare a departmental report; the Opposition voted for no departmental report to be written, therefore no analysis of submissions and no opportunity for members of the public to have their submissions read and synthesised into the report. We were the ones that invited the Minister in charge of the bill to present and make his case to the select committee; the Opposition opposed that opportunity. Finally, we need to make it clear that the committee unanimously wrote to the Business Committee to seek the agreement to make sure that every single submission was counted, while the outstanding ones were processed for consistency with the Standing Orders, and it is the Opposition which opposed that process. I have tried my best to set the record straight on some of those issues and to provide some reassurances for the public out there. But I do finish my contribution by extending my gratitude to the hundreds of people who did take the time to present to us in person in select committee, and who did so with grace, with a sense of measure and with composure, and with a level of respect and manners that I don't think that was always afforded to them by members of our committee, and that is a great shame. For those individuals who were treated disrespectfully by members of Parliament when they gave their submission, I want to apologise to them. I want to thank all of those who sent kind words to the committee for the hard work undertaken in terms of considering this bill, whether they supported it or not. I'm glad that we are bringing this piece of legislation to a conclusion this afternoon. I'm glad that we can look forward to the task of rebuilding our economy and building a brighter, more prosperous future for all New Zealanders. The members opposite may laugh, but that is what we are focused on here. In saying that, we do not support this bill passing and I'll conclude my contribution by saying we do not commend this bill to the House. Hon Member: Total waste of time. Chlöe Swarbrick: Well, that's the Prime Minister! SPEAKER: That is the last outburst that member is to contribute to the House. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): I wanted to acknowledge the Harawira whānau, firstly, because this week they lost one of their matriarchs and one of their leaders—Hinewhare Harawira—and my marae hosted the tangi for a day and a night. I mention her because she was one of the biggest fighters against this bill. I mention her also because Te Pāti Māori turned up. They were there a little earlier than me. They gave a copy of the bill to put in the hole with Hinewhare tomorrow! So [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] But we remember her well and her fight for Māori rights. So we mihi to that whānau today, to Hone Harawira and the whānau, and they'll be burying her tomorrow. I want to also thank, today, the Justice Committee, particularly our leader over here—Duncan Webb and Ginny over here, who did a fabulous job. I also want to congratulate the chair, although I wasn't too happy with his speech today, but, without doubt, the next leader of the National Party and probably first Māori Prime Minister when the coup takes place in National over the next few months! The Treaty principles bill has highlighted the very worst of our democracy and, at the same time, the very best of our democracy. This race-baiting political stunt has been a right-wing obscenity masquerading as equality. You should be ashamed on that side of the House—they should all be ashamed—for allowing this hate into Parliament. What is most offensive is the way that the ACT Party and the political right have twisted the narrative to fit a racist agenda. The Treaty, as people have said, is not about racial privilege or racial superiority; it is and always has been about legal rights that Māori have in their contract with the Crown. Once and for all, for David Seymour's and his supporters' benefits, Treaty rights are not special privileges, or even extra rights, as he likes to paint them; they are rights that were in place before the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. The Treaty simply reaffirms those rights, the rights and acknowledge language, culture, identity, and property rights. It's ironic, isn't it, that the great advocates of property rights—the ACT Party—are so opposed to this. We get it now. Property rights only count if your Pākehā, but, if you're Māori, forget about them! Those indigenous rights didn't suddenly disappear when Māori signed the Treaty or when Mr Seymour dreamt up his Treaty principles bill. To therefore twist Treaty rights into some claim of apartheid is not only disingenuous, it is bad faith—and those two words sum up this whole disgraceful episode. That is bad faith. ACT never wanted a genuine debate on the Treaty, because this was never about a real engagement of ideas. This was always about whipping up racist hysteria, and calling that a debate. We heard David Seymour today, he compares his end-of-life referendum with this political stunt, and tries to claim that they're similar. No, they are not, Mr Seymour. The end-of-life referendum was a conscience issue; whereas rewriting the Treaty and forcing it upon the indigenous people, using the tyranny of the majority, is an outright assault on our history and on our rights. You cannot compare the end-of-life referendum with an attempt to erase Māori legal rights. On a philosophical level, the end of life is an individual right. Rewriting the Treaty is not an individual right; it is a property right that has enormous impacts that go well beyond the individual. Finally on referendums, Mr Seymour, they're not always the solution that you make out they are. Sometimes, believe it or not, the majority get it wrong. Your Government is an example of that! Let's look at referendums. Let's ask the Aboriginal people of Australia what they think of referendums when they were, sadly, defeated in their vote to recognise their indigenous rights last year. Or maybe the rainbow community—do we really think that homosexual law reform would have been passed in the 1980s? Give it a break. No chance. Or perhaps when my auntie Hemara Jackson, the nanny of young Hana over here, when she presented the Māori language petition over 50 years ago, talking about rights for te reo Māori, talking about te reo being an official language, do you think the public would have supported that? Do you think her and Ngā Tamatoa and all of our Māori language advocates would have been successful if this was a subject of a referendum? Not at all. Not a chance—not a chance. Here's the real question for all the brilliant lot in ACT: rather than test the legitimacy of the Treaty by a simple referendum, why not respect the decades of Treaty jurisprudence that's been developed by both Māori and the Crown, and, more particularly, the leading legal minds of this country? But, no, 'I'm Always Right' Seymour refuses to do this. It's an absolute disgrace how he refuses to accept the words of our greatest legal minds, politicians, academics, and, of course, Māori. Very similar, I might add, are people who believe that the world is still flat and not round. That sums up him and his nutjob supporters. While ACT and their band of appalling supporters are the very worst of our democracy, the way people have responded in rejecting this is our democracy at our best. Of the over 300,000, 90 percent spoke against this lie. Over 100,000 around the country—100,000 marching to call the stunt out for what it was. The massive cross-section of civil society, our young people, our Pasifika whānau, our Pākehā allies, tangata Tiriti, the disabled community, the rainbow community, unions, churches, and academics all combined as one to cry out that the Treaty is our shared identity. [ Interruption ] SPEAKER: Yeah, just cut out that conversation down here. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The Treaty is our hope and is our shared unique feature that defines us. There are vastly more of us who see the Treaty as a positive rather than a weapon to divide us. ACT's hate has been defeated here today. Let us not forget all of this divisiveness, all this naked racism, all this spite and malice has been whipped up by them and a redneck agenda, sadly, in our view, that was allowed because the Prime Minister Christopher Luxon did not stand up against David Seymour. Wait a minute, he didn't even have to stand up—he didn't even have to stand up. As we found out, this wasn't even a bottom line in negotiations. So much for the great negotiator Christopher Luxon! It defies belief that we're talking about the Treaty principles today, given that we now know the full story behind the coalition agreements. Shame on the Prime Minister. Our nation required leadership on race issues, but the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, wanted to be the Prime Minister at all costs, blinded to ACT's demands—well, they weren't even demands in the end—and instead of resisting, he caved into them. Where is the Prime Minister now? That's the question. Let it be known that history is watching this day, and the people will not forget who turned up and who didn't and who led and who didn't. Our leader turned up. What a fabulous kōrero from him today. It was fabulous. His kōrero about coming together and celebrating our differences is resonating with our communities. His acknowledgment that Māori did not concede tino rangatiratanga—or sovereignty—is the first time that any leader of a mainstream party has admitted that in Aotearoa. Why? Because he knows 80,000 Māori are not going to give up rangatiratanga or their whole lives to 2,000 settlers. So, well done to our leader who shows courage which is, sadly, lacking from the Government at the moment. I said in the first reading that David Seymour was talking falsehoods, ignorance, and nonsense. I've had time to reflect on my speech; it may come as a surprise but my views haven't changed with Mr Seymour. I want to say again how proud I was of the select committee. I want to honour that committee today. So my final words in terms of my kōrero today: I have to say to David Seymour, and say to you straight—oh, he's left the building— Hon Members: No, no. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: He's over there. Well, I'll say to you wherever you are—oh, there you are, David Seymour: you're a disgrace to this House, and, when it comes to the Treaty of Waitangi, you will always be a liar. Kia ora, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: The member will withdraw and apologise for that statement. Mr Jackson, you need to withdraw and apologise for making that statement. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Well, Mr Speaker, if I was to withdraw and apologise, it would be an insult to 270,000 select committee submitters, who all think that Mr Seymour is a liar, also. SPEAKER: Good. That is your opinion. Leave the House. Hon Willie Jackson withdrew from the Chamber. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I don't think he was talking about his character; actually, David Seymour was lying on the ground over there. SPEAKER: Rima Nakhle. And we will go back to listening to speeches in silence. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Ahiahi mārie to everyone who has tuned in, and haere mai to all gathered in our parliamentary Whare, particularly my quasi-niece, Ripora, who has travelled all the way from South Auckland to witness this kaupapa. Welcome—habibtii. I rise to convey my whakaaro on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill in its second reading. I believe I've exercised my duty on the Justice Committee, as a member, as best I could, and I want to thank the former chair, the Hon James Meager—who sits beside me—and my colleagues across the committee for the work and for the passion that they put into this kaupapa. It was often very testing and quite emotionally taxing, but I felt privileged, throughout the process, to see, firsthand, New Zealand dialogue and history unfolding. I often share my National Party values, where appropriate, and here, if I may, I would like to share one of our values that's been around for a long time: equal citizenship and equal opportunity for all New Zealanders. The challenges of the Treaty are complex—they're complex—and as I've said, they're challenging. For over 185 years, we have grappled with these challenges together, and together we will continue to do so. This model has served New Zealand relatively well, and I truly believe that we are more open minded and a tolerant country because of our Treaty discussions. As we've heard earlier, and throughout this whole conversation, the National Party strongly asserts that a referendum on the Treaty would be a simplistic approach to an extremely complex and challenging issue, and so today, we are voting to ensure it will go no further—I say this respectfully to our coalition partners, but this is our strong view. As I look around the gallery, I see it filled with beautiful faces, many of which I am in the blessed position to know—friends sitting above from both sides of today's kōrero, friends whom I have sat down with in my home as we've shared Lebanese kai that I've cooked and discussed these challenging and complex issues that our country faces. We've disagreed, and we've agreed, and we've disagreed again, but all from a place of honesty, because we are in this together. That is what I hope we can take from today. I hope that we will continue approaching our relations on a measured, case-by-case basis, because that's what our profound history deserves. Let's underpin our conversations not with our desire for political points but rather with honest intentions for our collective future. Mātātoa, going forward—active, courageous, and valiant. I do not commend this bill to the House. CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Hearing speeches of vindication from that side of the House is very hard to swallow, because that has been this National-led Government that has allowed this ugly monster to rear its head in the light of day. The individual whose name this bill is in and his party have suggested the Treaty gives Māori different rights and privileges. By God, do I stand here privileged. I am the privileged product of generations of people who persevered in the face of breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, I am privileged to live on my whenua, and I'm privileged to speak tāku reo Māori, te reo ōku tīpuna—rights and privileges denied to too many Māori, rights and privileges that, through perseverance, we have managed to maintain and that this bill sought to undermine and failed. Aotearoa and, indeed, iwi taketake from around the world stood united against this backward-looking, divisive bill. And let's not forget resource wasting, [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Three-hundred thousand of you presented your opposition to this bill, and behind you was a nation united. The Aotearoa New Zealand we believe in organised and marched. Some of you, Aotearoa, simply changed your worldview adding momentum to this kaupapa. Mana Māori was never threatened by this bill. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] And, throughout this ordeal, people across Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and, indeed, Aotearoa have held fast to your vision for our future, and you're ready to get back to business—back to the business of ensuring an Aotearoa where our tamariki and mokopuna thrive in our ao Māori me te ao whānui, an Aotearoa where our whenua is nurtured and developed and whānau have a roof over their heads and our hauora is a priority, and an Aotearoa where you can earn a good living; back to the business of expanding the thriving Māori economy. And we're all about it. To get back to that business, e hoa mā, you need a Government that enables your moemoeā, and that ain't it. I said, in the first reading of this koretake bill, we do not need to change the Treaty; we need to change this Government. Toitū te Tiriti! Part one: tick. Let's get on with part two. They asked for the election to be a referendum. Let's deliver. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] I stand once more with pride and privilege to condemn this bill, and I repeat: this Government must not be vindicated. It is this Government that allowed this bill to cause the divisive conversations throughout Aotearoa. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I had an opportunity to participate in the first reading of this bill, and that debate was a momentous debate in terms of how this House views this legislation that's proposed before us. At that time, I made it clear that, in my view, over successive decades, New Zealand has grappled with how to deal with the Treaty. It's been a long, continuous, and ongoing debate, and that will be the case after this bill has been put to rest. That debate will continue, that discussion will continue—indeed, it will continue long after all of us have left this place. So while we don't necessarily always agree, successive National Governments have always worked well with Māori on Treaty issues, and we've always ensured that there are equal citizenship rights and equal opportunity for all New Zealanders. So the challenges that we confront as a nation around the Treaty are complex, and it's just not realistic to suggest that nearly 200 years of debate, discussion, protest sometimes, informed debate, education, and input from so many New Zealanders over all those years, should be settled just with the stroke of one legislative pen. It's too blunt, it's too simplistic, and it risks, in reality, actually stoking grievance and driving division. I don't think that's good for our nation. I don't think that that helps us achieve the goals and aspirations that we all seek to achieve by coming to this place. National takes, always, the more difficult and realistic, practical approach when it comes to working together, and we do so by working through issues in relation to the Treaty on a case by case basis. For instance, the reversal of a number of divisive co-governance policies from the previous Government, that would have, in fact, contributed to worse economic and social regulatory outcomes. For instance, Three Waters and the Māori Health Authority. We've also instructed Government agencies in the term of this Government to deliver public services based on needs, and working with iwi and other providers where specific needs exist amongst Māori and other communities. We are continuing to establish and progress Treaty settlements to address the historical wrongdoings. In another example, restoring the rights of communities to determine whether to introduce Māori wards after the previous Government denied local constituents the opportunity to do so; that's another example of a case by case approach to how we address those issues. So having participated in the first reading debate, having watched closely the work of the Justice Committee chaired by my friend and colleague the Hon James Meager, ultimately, I want to reiterate in my closing moments of my contribution in this debate that this National Party that I am proud to be a member of, our focus and the focus of this coalition Government remains firmly and steadfastly on improving outcomes for Māori and non-Māori. We do that by rebuilding our economy, by restoring law and order, and by delivering better public services for all New Zealand. This bill achieves none of that. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Well here we are, finally getting ready of this divisive and wasteful bill. Now, unlike James Meager, I'm not going to spend 10 minutes whining about process, but I will say two things. Firstly, there are 105,000 submissions that aren't on the parliamentary record to date, and to suggest that that's all OK is false. There was a room down in the corner with 24 boxes of hand-written and typed submissions, hard-copy submissions, that you had to go in and rifle through if you wanted to find something. And if you wanted to find a particular submission, you had to name it, you had to name the submitter. I'm sorry, but I don't know 307,000 people. What's more, whilst that process was still ongoing, the chairman of the Justice Committee moved the motion to report the bill back to the House 40 days before it was due—whilst we were still working through the submissions and putting them on the record. That is shabby. That is shabby process. But not as shabby as what the Government has done, and the Prime Minister has done, in letting this bill come to the House, because this is a bill that the Prime Minister had the gall to stand up and say that it's not going to pass, and to then bring it to this House is disrespectful to this Chamber. This Chamber's time is valuable and there should be put before this House laws which are seriously being considered, not flying up the flagpole some divisive bill. But I do want to pay tribute to those submitters—all of those people. And I must say it was humbling—not only to see the people who came in person from across the community but also to read some of those written submissions as well. And I want to pay respect to the diversity of the views—the people who came and gave their whakapapa and told their stories and expressed their vehement opposition to the bill, not in a way that David Seymour would understand but in a way that came from a long history. Not an academic tradition that I'm familiar with, but I engaged with it and I learnt from it. And I want to pay respect to the new immigrants who came and said, 'I'm proud to be here and to participate in this country, and I understand the Treaty helps me understand my place in this community.' And I see David Seymour's already on Twitter saying that he still doesn't have a good reason for why this bill is being turned around. Hon David Seymour: Try giving us one. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, I'll give you one—I'll give you one—it's a lie. The bill is a lie because it says one thing, and the truth is another. It says that these are the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi—and they're not. As Chris Finlayson said, you can't legislate to make the world flat. The fact is you cannot legislate the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi out of existence—they might be constitutional truisms or they might be undermining the customary position of iwi in our country, but they're not the Treaty principles. You can't make up the underlying fabric of the Treaty. So it's absolutely fatuous to suggest that this bill reflected, in any way, the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I want to address head-on—I want to address head-on—two other fallacies which underpin this bill. The first is that his stooges would front up to the Justice Committee and say this is about living in a liberal democracy. Their concept of a liberal democracy was shallow and impoverished because all it meant was one person, one vote. What it didn't mean was a respect for human rights; a recognition of indigenous people in the place where they belong. What it didn't recognise was the rights of minorities. So what we had was an argument which was about a hundred years out of date. And that's about where the ACT Party are. The irony is that all of the advice that was received, not just submissions but the thoughtful advice, pointed this out. And even the Cabinet Manual, a document which isn't a political document, makes it really clear that there is a balance to be struck between the rights of the majority—majority power in a place like this—and minority rights; the protection of fundamental social and constitutional values. But the ACT Party's not interested in that. They're interested in a radical individualism which doesn't recognise that there are communities of interest, that there are differences between people, and that in a modern liberal democracy, as Bronwyn Hayward so thoughtfully put, there is a duty to protect those people who are vulnerable, to respect indigenous rights, and to ensure that the majority does not oppress the minority. So that's what a modern, functioning liberal democracy is. Hon Kieran McAnulty: They don't want that. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: They don't want that, Kieran McAnulty, they want the opposite. They want they want to go back a hundred years and live in a radical libertarian world. The other argument they want—and again, I want to go head-on here, the ACT member on the committee would constantly put to members, put to submitters the following question: does the Treaty of Waitangi give different rights based on ancestry? Just an absolute trope of inequality. Now the lie in that, the falsehood underlying that statement, is that difference is inequality—and it's not. Now, there are all kinds of ways we can be different. We can have kaupapa Māori health services or schools or social services. And in fact, anyone who knows the area will know that you don't even have to be Māori to access them. They're for everyone. But to suggest that to deliver services in a particular way to best serve communities is in some way unequal is an absolute fallacy. Time and again, we heard the resource management trope come up. David Seymour himself mention it today. Now, we pressed on that, because if there's something there, we wanted to know. We asked the question: what is the special advantage that Māori have under the Resource Management Act? No one could put their finger on it. If it's a special advantage for mana whenua to be asked about a project that might impact their customary rights, well that's a world I want to live in, because that's actually respecting customary rights and property interests. And you should be respecting that as well. The suggestion that Māori are precluded in some way is just false. The fallacy is that the provision of services should be in a non-Māori way. What that does is essentially exclude the reality that there is more than one way of doing things, that we can do things which are equal and different. That's not appropriate. So what we have here is a situation where 300,000 people have stood up, and many people at select committee spoke up, but over there, they stood by. They stood by and did nothing, and they actually presided over a piece of legislation which has been exceedingly divisive. Now, you can talk about a conversation—and we are prepared for a conversation, and I'm proud to stand with my colleagues, my Māori colleagues who have spoken today here from the Labour Party, from the Greens, and from Te Pāti Māori. But to have an ill-thought-out bill based on premises which are fundamentally racist is not having a constitutional conversation. The time is to make up, to talk about how we honour the Treaty in a more fulsome way, and about how we live together and address some of the gross inequalities which continue in our society. But to put a bill into the House that we know is never going to be passed, so that we can see some of the hateful rhetoric coming out, is simply divisive, wasteful, and wrong. I'm proud to speak today, but not proud of what this House has done but proud of what New Zealand has done. It has come out in its thousands and hundreds of thousands to say, 'We'll have no part of this.' CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): My colleagues have already said that this law is a simplistic tool that does not address the underlying issues and they have highlighted the steps that the National-led Government has been taking to address the genuine concerns that Kiwis have, so now let me turn to the vision that National has for our country. We want a thriving, united New Zealand, where every Kiwi enjoys equal opportunity and equal citizenship and takes pride in our shared future. Kiwis do best when we are working together in a spirit of unity and of mutual respect. At the heart of our nation's foundation lies the Treaty of Waitangi, the document that sets out the framework for the relationship between Māori and the Crown. It is our duty to ensure the Crown upholds its obligations under the Treaty and that historical grievances are addressed in a fair and in a just manner. As my colleagues have also said, while we may not agree on every issue, successive National Governments have worked constructively with Māori on Treaty matters, always ensuring equal citizenship and equal opportunity for all New Zealanders. This is a commitment we will continue to uphold, addressing each case and issue on its own merits, always striving for better outcomes for all. National also has a proud record when it comes to Treaty settlements, having made more progress than any Governments in resolving historical grievances. More importantly, we are now seeing the benefits of this progress. The Māori economy has seen remarkable growth, with its asset base rising from $69 billion in 2018 to $119 billion in 2023. This is not just a statistic; it represents real, tangible benefits for communities across New Zealand, particularly in the regions, where Māori are making a significant economic contribution. The work we've undertaken in settling grievances is vital to ensuring and securing a prosperous future. We must continue to build on this foundation, ensuring all Treaty settlements are completed and implemented, with benefits flowing through to iwi, to communities, and to New Zealand as a whole. We must keep moving forward. In the past year alone, we've achieved notable success. Through partnership with Māori health organisations, over 69,000 vaccinations have been delivered to New Zealanders. We've seen more than 20 Māori-led or Māori-partnered projects placed on the fast-track list. We've also committed over $200 million to Māori housing providers and helped nearly 2,000 children, many of them Māori, move out of emergency housing. When Māori succeed, New Zealand succeeds. Our fates are intertwined. Together we are working towards a better, more prosperous New Zealand for the future and for the future generations of all Kiwis. National does not commend this bill to the House and it will vote against it. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill be now read a second time. Ayes 11 ACT New Zealand 11. Noes 112 New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion not agreed to. SPEAKER: Before I announce the vote, following this announcement, a waiata has been agreed to. The Ayes are 11; the Noes are 112. The motion is lost. [ Applause ] That's enough. If there is to be a waiata, now is the time. Waiata—'Tūtira mai ngā iwi' [ Disturbance occurred in the gallery ] SPEAKER: No, no, no. Fella, excuse me. Good boy—on your way. [ Interruption ] Someone come and help him out. I just want to say to the whole gallery, who are applauding: that sort of outburst does not help us move forward in the tikanga of this House—most unhelpful. Content Sourced from Original url Join the ScoopCitizen Community 20 years of independent publishing is a milestone, but to keep Scoop thriving we need your support. We are building on our and Scoop offering with our new In-depth Engaged Journalism platform. Now, more than ever sustainable financial support of the Scoop Foundation for Public Interest Journalism will help to keep these vital and participatory media services running. Find out more and join us: Become a member Find out more
Scoop
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Principles Of The Treaty Of Waitangi Bill — Second Reading
Sitting date: 10 Apr 2025 PRINCIPLES OF THE TREATY OF WAITANGI BILL Second Reading Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Justice): I move, That the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill be now read a second time. Members of this House can still change their minds—[ A disturbance occurred in the gallery, and a member of the public was removed on the instruction of the Speaker. ] SPEAKER: Let me make it very clear: anyone else in here who thinks that's an acceptable intervention in the activities of this Parliament will be treated harshly by the officers of the law who are here. It's completely unacceptable. We live in a democracy. This is the place where opinions are given, not from the gallery. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Members of this House can still change their minds and send this bill onwards to a referendum of the people, and I ask that members listen carefully to understand the choice they'll be denying the New Zealand people if they oppose this bill. Five decades ago, this House passed the Treaty of Waitangi Act, saying that the Treaty had principles but failing to say what they were. And those principles, as a concept, are not going away. The National Party and New Zealand First commitment to review the principles will not get rid of them. The review will not touch the Treaty of Waitangi Act itself, and it will only review other bills with the help of Te Puni Kōkiri. With the unelected Parliament silent on the principles for 50 years, the unelected judges, the Waitangi Tribunal, and the public servants have defined them instead. They say the Treaty is a "partnership between races". They say one race has a special place in New Zealand. The effects of these principles have become more and more obvious lately. We've seen a separate Māori Health Authority—[ Interruption ] SPEAKER: Just stop! We're going to hear the balance of this speech and all others in silence. It's not a matter to be excited about. It's a parliamentary process. Everyone has the right to speak and be heard, and they will be today. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: We've seen a separate Māori Health Authority. We've seen resource management decisions held up for years awaiting cultural-impact assessments due to Treaty principles in the Resource Management Act. We've seen half the seats governing three waters infrastructure reserved for one-sixth of the population. We've seen public entities appoint two chief executives to represent each side of this so-called "partnership between races". And we've seen a history curriculum teach children to believe history is a simple story of victims and villains divided by their ancestry. Some will say that a Government can change these policies case by case. And, indeed, I'm proud to be part of a Government that is doing that. The problem is, though, that another Government can just as easily bring them back if the bad ideas behind these policies are not confronted. And that's why we see professional bodies, universities, the public service, and schools nurturing the divisive idea that the Treaty is a partnership, hoping it will grow again at some future time. The partnership principle tells us that Kiwis should be ranked by the arrival of their ancestors. We've seen it in recent weeks. Just one disgraceful example was the attack on my colleague Parmjeet Parmar by the dean of a law school for being a migrant who proudly chose this country. She faced no consequences for that, and it shows how low our country has sunk. The idea that your race matters is a version of a bigger problem. It's part of that bigger idea that our lives are determined— Rawiri Waititi: The Treaty doesn't mention anything by race. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —by things out of our control. And I hear the leader of Te Pāti Māori saying, "Oh, it's not about race." He named his party after a race. Of course you have a problem with race in this country under our current policies. They may have occurred, these problems, these ideas that determine our future. These events may have occurred before we were even born. We face a denial that we can make a difference in our own lives and that we have a right to do so by this old-fashioned primitive determinism that should have no place in a country that is founded, and lived in, by pioneers. We are all thinking—we are all valuing beings. We should all have "ngā tikanga katoa rite tahi", the same rights and duties, just as the third article of te Tiriti itself says. And that's why the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill would finally define the principles in line with the Treaty itself, giving all Kiwis equal rights. And let me read those proposed principles because if anyone wants to vote against this bill in this House today, then let them explain specifically why they oppose the words in the bill. It says, "Principle 1: The Executive Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and the Parliament of New Zealand has full power to make laws, … Principle 2: (1) The Crown recognises, and will respect and protect, the rights that hapū and iwi Māori had under the Treaty of Waitangi … at the time they signed it.", so long as those rights are extended to everyone who lives here or are set out in a Treaty settlement and, "Principle 3: (1) Everyone is equal before the law. (2) Everyone is entitled, without discrimination, to—(a) the equal protection and equal benefit of the law; and (b) the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights." People who oppose this bill should ask themselves, what is the best argument they have against these principles and are they prepared to say that argument out loud? And, if not, perhaps they should support the bill so the people of New Zealand can have a say at referendum. I now turn to the submissions from the select committee, and I'd like to thank the chair and most of the members of the committee. They heard 80 hours of submissions—nearly a record. However, submissions are not a referendum. If MPs believe that the bill should be passed depending on public opinion, they should front up, vote for the bill, and send it to an actual referendum, which is what the bill does. There are many bills that have attracted large numbers of opposing submissions and, yet, been very popular with the general public—the end of life choice and abortion law reform both had 90 percent of submissions against them at select committee but proved overwhelmingly popular with the public, and so it is with the principles I've just read out that, on average, enjoy support from the public by two to one when all New Zealanders are asked on an equal basis. Select committees, while they may not tell us about numbers, can, though, tell us about ideas. And I believe that this submission process has actually been very useful. Some argued against the bill's first principle that this Parliament has the full power to make laws. They said that the chiefs never ceded sovereignty when they signed the Treaty. What they cannot explain is how a society is supposed to work without clear laws that apply equally to all. The answer is that does not and cannot work. People who believe, for example, that an American county or an Indian band in Canada having limited jurisdiction and a limited territory is the same as shared sovereignty are not taking the issue seriously. Still others argue that maybe Parliament can make laws but not this law. What they're really saying is our constitutional future can be decided by the unelected but not the elected and certainly not the people in a referendum. Those are the fundamentally undemocratic propositions anyone opposing this bill is really signing up to. They do not trust the New Zealand people to determine their constitutional future, and I'm so proud to stand for the one party in this House that most certainly does. There were two objections that cancelled each other out. One said the bill isn't needed because Māori don't actually have special rights in New Zealand. Other objections said the bill is an abomination because it denies Māori equal rights. Which one is it? It can't be both. Well, the truth is that we are all equal deep down, but too many of our policies aim to treat people differently based on their ancestry. This is why we have to remove that idea that New Zealanders have different rights and are ranked by the arrival of their ancestors. A more interesting objective is that Māori have group rights to such things as language and culture. Some Māori have been told this bill will take away the mana of their reo and their tikanga, but that is simply untrue. This bill supports all people to cherish their taonga. If we're going to have Diwali, Lunar New Year, and the Highland games, of course we should have kapa haka. We have media in many languages. There's no reason not to have te reo Māori. The bill provides for that. We just don't need to divide the country in a "partnership between races" to do it. Other critics say the bill must be wrong because the bureaucracy said so. Of course they do. If the bureaucrats got it right, we wouldn't need the bill in Parliament, but the problem is what the bureaucracy has invented in the last 40 years is contrary to equal rights in liberal democracy. Finally, some critics say that the debate is divisive. Well, I say it has revealed the division. I say it's revealed a sizeable minority of New Zealanders who oppose equal rights, liberal democracy, and treating each person with the same basic dignity. I want to end my speech with a quote from a Jewish man who wrote a book in Christchurch while he was hiding from Nazis in World War II. The book is The Open Society and its Enemies. It's been described as the most important book ever written in New Zealand. His name was Sir Karl Popper, and he said, "The more we try to return to the heroic age of tribalism, the more surely do we arrive at the inquisition, the secret police, and a romanticised gangsterism. Beginning with the suppression of reason and truth, we must end with the most brutal and violent destruction of all that is human. There is no return to a harmonious state of nature. If we turn back, we must go the whole way. We must return to the beast. But if we wish to remain human, there is only one way, the way into the open society. We must go on into the unknown, the uncertain, and insecure, using what reason we may have to plan as well as we can for both security and freedom." Members of the House and public of New Zealand, a free society takes hard work and uneasy conversations. I'm proud that my party has had the bravery, the clarity, and the patriotism to raise uneasy topics, and I challenge other parties to find those qualities in themselves and support this bill. We will continue to fight on for the truth that all Kiwis are equal. Āke, ake, ake. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Normally, when I rise in this House to speak on a bill, I say it's a great privilege to speak on the bill. That is not the case today. This is a grubby little bill, born of a grubby little deal. It has had a colossal—[ Interruption ] SPEAKER: Excuse me. I'll make it clear just once: the gallery do not interfere in the activities of Parliament. Another outburst like that and we'll clear the galleries—everyone will be going. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It has had a colossal impact on the fabric of our nation, and this bill will forever be a stain on our country. What I do take pride in is the way New Zealanders have come together over the last six months to say, loud and clear, "This is not us; this is not Aotearoa New Zealand." For 185 years, Māori and non-Māori have worked together to make progress. We honour those who have come before. We stand on their shoulders today. When I say "we", I mean those on this side of the House—Labour, Te Pāti Māori, the Green Party—united in our determination, throughout this debate, to defeat this bill, to end the division that it has created, and to bring this country together. Today, National and New Zealand First join the opposition to this bill, but they can claim no victory, no virtue, and no principle; they get no credit for finally starting to fight the fire they helped to ignite. Today, their votes will fall on the right side of the ledger, but they will forever be on the wrong side of history when it comes to this bill. Not one National MP should walk out of this debating chamber today with their head held high, because, when it comes to this debate, they led nothing, they stopped nothing, and they stood for nothing, unlike the 300,000 New Zealanders who stood up to be counted when it comes to this bill; all those who marched in the streets together—Māori, non-Māori, ethnic communities, young and old—saying, "This is not New Zealand, and this will not define who we are as a country." This is a bill based on a mythology—a mythology that is far too easily turned into outright lies: the myth of Māori special privilege. Life expectancy seven years lower than for other New Zealanders is not special privilege. Being twice as likely to die from cancer as others is not special privilege. A higher rate of childhood hospitalisation, 40 percent of Māori living in the highest areas of deprivation compared to just 10 percent of Europeans—these are not signs of privilege. But too often these statistics are twisted to suggest that Māori are wanting the Crown to save them. I've been up and down the country in recent years speaking to Māori all over New Zealand, and that could not be further from the truth. How ignorant, how blind, and how wrong those statements are. Māori have been very clear: what they're asking for is partnership, for the Crown to walk alongside them and to embrace by-Māori, for-Māori solutions. Māori want to do the mahi themselves, and they want the Crown to stop acting as an impediment to that. I say it's time we listened and it's time we acted on that. When it comes to Māori politics and politicians, I have found that there are two approaches in common, and I spoke about these before the last election: playing the race card, spreading the myth of Māori special privilege, talking about one law for all, and playing on people's fears; but on the other side is the middle ground, keeping quiet and, too often, watering down policy so as not to be seen as too pro-Māori. I said before the election, and I'll say it again today: I reject both of those approaches, because when Māori thrive in New Zealand, all of us benefit, all of us will thrive, and non-Māori have nothing to fear from Māori getting ahead here in New Zealand. Once again, I say to the members opposite in the National Party, where are the voices like Christopher Finlayson, Doug Graham, Jim Bolger, Jenny Shipley, John Key, Bill English, who were proud of the Treaty partnership, who embraced concepts like co-governance, and they didn't call it divisive. Our work, in Government, which has been the subject of much debate on that side of the House, actually built on the foundations that were set by successive Governments, both Labour and National. It is that history of progress that today's National Party have turned their backs against. In my lifetime, we have changed as a nation for the better—from one that punished kids for speaking te reo Māori to one that embraces te reo Māori in all of our classrooms; from one that ignored our history to one that teaches all of our kids in all of our schools Aotearoa New Zealand's history; from one that turned a blind eye to the wrongs of the past to one that makes amends and commits not to repeating the same mistakes again. Until today, that is. Christopher Luxon called Te Tiriti o Waitangi "a little experiment". Winston Peters claims that Māori are not indigenous to Aotearoa. In fact, as I was re-reading my notes from before the election, I was reminded of a quote by a New Zealand First candidate in this most recent election campaign, which I'm going to quote directly from: "Cry if you want to, we don't care. You pushed it too far. We are the party with the cultural mandate and the courage to cut out your disease and bury you permanently." That was a New Zealand First candidate speaking about Māori in New Zealand. It made me sick to my stomach then, and it still does now, because te Tiriti is not "a little experiment"; it is a bold promise and a bold vision. It is not a source of division; it is what binds us together. Yes, it is a partnership, a structure, something to work towards, a promise to uphold, because, as I've said, when Māori thrive, all of Aotearoa New Zealand thrives. Over 185 years, we've worked together to fulfil the promise of te Tiriti—the good and the bad—and there has been far too much bad in that work. We have discussed, debated, and argued about the meaning of te Tiriti. We've argued about what the visionary rangatira who signed it had intended. That 185 years of history, of debate, of discussion, of argument, of progress, informs how we interpret te Tiriti today, and no member of this House simply gets to wipe all of that 185 years of history away to suit their own purposes. The Treaty of Waitangi is not just history, it's not just ink on paper; it's a living promise. Today, on this side of the House, we honour that promise. We commit to continuing to strive to do better, to bring people together, to move our nation forward. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] We must work together for the wellbeing of all, work together in partnership. Coming together does not mean being the same. It does not mean thinking the same. It does not mean acting the same. It means embracing our differences but working together to find common ground so that we can all move forward together. So let's finally consign this grubby little bill to the scrapheap of history, where it can take its place alongside the other darker acts of this House that have also been consigned to our history. Let's instead move forward together. Let's find a positive, lighter path, where we can bring the country together, where we cannot play on prejudice but seek to reconcile our differences, where we can celebrate our history—the positives of it—and recognise the ugly parts for what they were and commit to doing better. This debate has not been helpful for the fabric of Aotearoa New Zealand. It is well and truly time for it to be over. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): The people have spoken and like them, the Green Party opposes this Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill. I have never felt so much FOMO than that when I was unable to be working and was mostly confined to my home and felt the kaha, the wairua, the beautiful energy of the hīkoi all around the country and the hīkoi to this place, te Whare Pāremata. Tēnā koutou e te whānau. Tēnā tēnā tātou katoa. I was so inspired by your beautiful kotahitanga energy that I ran and found my tino rangatiratanga flag and took a photo in my backyard as me trying to grab any contribution to feel like I could be a part of the movement that the people so brilliantly created off the back of this miserable piece of little bill. That backyard photo went a little bit viral, but nowhere near as viral as the haka that happened in this place. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] It is perhaps ironic then that this is the first and only chance that I get to speak to this bill, but I will be using my space today mostly to amplify the voices of the submitters. After all, that is what a second reading speech will most normally do. This House will and should hear repeatedly today that 90 percent of the submissions oppose—and that's from 307,000 submissions; record-breaking submissions to the Justice Committee—this bill. Also, a record-breaking 80 percent of the oral submissions also oppose this bill, and that is also from 529 oral submissions. The people spoke. There was one clear message: Toitū Te Tiriti. Part of the reason why the people were not fooled at all by this bill is because we now have generations of understanding that Te Tiriti was always a dream from mine and your ancestors—the promise of peoples to take the best possible care of each other. That is an iconic kōrero from Bishop Manuhuia Bennett, which actually needs to be the understanding of where we are going to. We can take even further the voice of one of the submitters, Dayle Takitimu, who said, "[We assert that Te Tiriti] is [a] core agreement that affirms [the] place to belong and a place to stand for everyone in Aotearoa". We can also look at the incredible poetry of another submitter, Karlo Mila, who outlines perfectly the vision for Aotearoa, for our mokopuna to come. Karlo says, "The answer is te Tiriti, not separatist exclusion. It's the fair terms of inclusion, an ancestral strategy for harmony, a covenant of cooperation. It's how we live ethically on land that was never ceded." The Green Party is proud to have always affirmed the mana motuhake, the tino rangatiratanga, the self-determination of iwi and hapū guaranteed by Te Tiriti. We had a dig around. We did a bit of research and what we found—which I know that the pushers of this bill did not anticipate—was that there has not been another bill with a record-breaking number of submissions to select committee that was met with such overwhelming power of opposition. I am so proud once again to highlight the people have spoken and they have spoken clearly and strongly. The people are not fooled by the ACT Party trying to ignore the injustice and inequity that has seen, for example, that Māori are three times more likely to be arrested and convicted of a cannabis-related crime than non-Māori, but let us be clear, for doing the same thing. So this is what we need to point out: three times more likely to be arrested and convicted for doing the same thing. The ACT party, I challenge them to release their myth of special Māori treatment and find their equity bone, to find their equity analysis, and to ignore their myth of Māori privilege and find their equity analysis deep within their bones. I implore them so they do not bring any more embarrassing bills like this to the House. Te Tiriti is forever, and that's what we have heard and that's what I will say again, and again. But what we know is that this Crown has not yet actually upheld its promise, its side of taking care of each other. Again, we can go to the words of Karlo Mila in the second part of her passage that I read out earlier. She says, "But we watch political parties sow seeds of disunity using disingenuous history. Harnessing hate speech, and the haka of destiny. Scapegoating vulnerable enemies, sharing just a joke fantasies of blowing up ministries targeting ethnic minorities." This was an incredible opportunity for the Prime Minister who is not even here receiving the harm— Hon Member: Point of order. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: I take that back. SPEAKER: Withdraw and apologise. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: I withdraw and apologise. It would have been a fantastic opportunity to see the leaders across all of our parties be here— SPEAKER: I'm sorry, that's the same line. Move on. SPEAKER: No, no. You can't do that. The member's speech will be terminated if it doesn't come back to point. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. Speakers' rulings make it very clear that there's a convention not to mention a member's absence, but there is an exception to that where it is a particularly important moment. This is a particularly important moment where hundreds of thousands of people have made a submission, and one member in particular has chosen not to be here. SPEAKER: Actually, Dr Webb, you've just exacerbated the problem, and I'd advise you not to push that too much further. Marama Davidson, return to the basis of your speech without reference to anybody else in this House. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: I no longer need to. I do want to take a moment to acknowledge the movement and I will also take this time—I think it's appropriate—to acknowledge the incredible Hinewhare Harawira, who lies right at this time at Whakapara. As her whānau says, she was an unstoppable force in the drive of tino rangatiratanga. I think it is really appropriate that we acknowledge her particular presence and passing in this House today, and that Hinewhare and so many others are just part of generational work that has amounted to the huge uprising from a diverse range of people from diverse communities who have said very, very clearly, "We are not falling for what this bill is trying to do." We have now got generations of examples of us working together and upholding Te Tiriti, seeing the value, and the benefits, and the beauty in the vision of taking good care of each other, working together at the grassroots level and understanding they knew what this bill was trying to do. They could sniff the division a mile away and they came to the Justice Committee, they marched the streets, they signed petitions, they wrote postcards, and they said very clearly, "Toitū Te Tiriti. Te Tiriti is forever, and we are not fooled by the attempt to divide us." In fact, there was a particular moment in the select committee submissions where we even had an ACT MP attempt to drive a migrant away from centring Te Tiriti, where the Muslim community leader Anjum Rahman was asked if she was comfortable—by that ACT MP—with new migrants potentially being left with different rights to Māori. She said, "I reject your framing. I reject your question. This is a way to try and sow division between communities and we see you." is what she said. She said, "When you go to ethnic minority communities and try and promote division between our community and theirs, we hear you when you say, 'Oh, your community suffers racism too, and [they get] special treatment.' " And she said in her submission Māori did not get "special treatment. They [did not get] privileges. They are getting the rights that were promised to them, and the help that should have been upheld in a very minuscule way." I am so pleased that the people came and spoke. We are proud to stand here today to oppose the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill. Toitū Te Tiriti. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The outcome of the vote today has been known since the Treaty principles bill was introduced. National has consistently said we'll not support it into law, fundamentally because we regard the bill, which seeks to impose a particular interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi by simple majority and referendum, as a crude way to handle a very sensitive topic. National believes in equal citizenship and equal opportunity for all New Zealanders, and we hold that there are better ways to defend those principles than through this bill. So it was clear, from the beginning, that the Treaty principles bill was not going to pass. And yet it still generated 300,000 submissions. Of those, more than 16,000 New Zealanders wanted to come and talk to the select committee, and more than 500 actually did. In the meantime, some 40,000 people marched to Parliament to oppose it, and it's dominated two summers. So what are we to make of this? Clearly, it shows that many people feel passionately about the topic, and I want to acknowledge the effort so many people put in to expressing their views. Some of the submissions were truly remarkable. It's equally true that the bill has provided a convenient vehicle for political campaigns, on all sides. And that is politics. We'll hear all sorts of hyperbole today, as we already have from the Leader of the Opposition, about how terrible it is for National to allow this bill to even be introduced. That is just froth and spray. Coalitions require compromises. National opposed the bill and would have preferred it not to have gone forward. ACT wanted to have the bill passed into law. None of us got what we wanted. That is life under MMP. Our country is not so fragile that we can't withstand a debate about the role of the Treaty. And we certainly won't take lectures from Labour about division. I'll never forget seeing Willie Jackson on TV casually declaring that democracy in New Zealand had changed, as his Government was pushing an agenda of co-governance on public servants. And all of us were wondering what on earth he meant and when we had discussed it, and when the people of New Zealand had been asked whether they wanted their democracy changed. National opposes this bill, but we do not oppose the open and frank discussion about the Treaty of Waitangi in our laws and within the context of a modern democracy. That discussion is alive and well and will continue. The critical thing is that we try our best to conduct that conversation with good grace. We live in a turbulent world, with examples every day of how societies can tear themselves apart. For all our faults and our disagreements, we hold things together very well in this country, and I have every confidence that we can continue to find a way through. Parliament first referred to the principles of the Treaty in the 1970s, but never defined them. The courts stepped into that vacuum, as we know, and over the past 30 years, principles of the Treaty such as the concept of partnership have been given greater weight. The interpretations of the court are not gospel; they should be debated. But if enacted, the Treaty principles bill would have short-circuited that debate. Parliament would simply have set down its interpretation of the Treaty and then sought a majority of the public to confirm that in the referendum. That would have, at the stroke of a pen, unwound more than 30 years of jurisprudence. And as I said at the first reading of the bill, there will be a wide variety of views within Māori, just as there are amongst any other group. But those opposed to the changes would likely conclude that fundamental change was being imposed upon them by a majority if it were to pass, and that would risk stoking an already keen sense of grievance. That's why National hasn't supported this bill. We continue to believe there are better ways to address the many legitimate questions about the role of the Treaty in our democracy today—to progress with the numerous specific changes that we're making case by case, issue by issue. The guiding principal is that, in our efforts to honour Treaty of Waitangi commitments, Treaty settlements, and to acknowledge tangata whenua, we should never lose sight of the basic expectations of people living in a modern, democratic society, such as equal voting rights, equality before the law, and, broadly speaking, an equal say in matters affecting their lives and in the world around them. There can be a tension between those two things, between honouring commitments to Māori flowing from the Treaty and the basic expectations of equality in a modern democracy. This is a tension that we can't just gloss over and ignore. Our proposition is that as a nation, we should be serious in our commitment to the first, but, in doing so, should be careful never to lose sight of, or drift too far from, the second. People, ultimately, have choices: where to live and where to invest. For our country to continue to succeed, those basic expectations of equality before the law must remain. This is not a topic, I don't think, that lends itself to neat, tidy, single solutions; it has to be worked through issue by issue. That's why we've reasserted the principle that healthcare should be delivered on the basis of need alone. That's why we're pushing back against the previous Government's move against equal voting rights in local government. It's why we've unwound co-governance arrangements in core public services and a separate Māori health authority. It's why we've also taken the unusual step of introducing legislation to overturn the marine and coastal area Act—a decision in the Court of Appeal. We're now considering following the Supreme Court's decision in terms of what steps are necessary, if any. That's why we're embarking on the challenging task of reviewing the Treaty references in existing legislation, to ensure that they're clearer about what Parliament does and doesn't mean—or to remove the Treaty references if there is no clear reason for having them. None of this is easy. At the same time, we're committed to continuing and completing the Treaty settlements process that was begun in the 1990s—around two-thirds of the settlements have been completed; many under previous National Governments. It has been a bipartisan effort across many decades and has involved thousands of Māori up and down the country, studying history, negotiating, forming new structures to manage settlements. Successfully, we have reestablished strong financial bases, confidence, and ambition. The settlements have never been an exercise in achieving perfection. Many Māori complainants will rightly point out that the settlement payments reflect only a fraction of what was lost, and that's true. Equally, the process requires today's iwi to spend sums running to the billions, and to agree to bespoke arrangements in specific places, often because of events going back as far as 180 years or earlier. So Treaty settlements require grace on both sides, as well. Treaty settlements and the continued substantial investments in preserving te reo, Māori culture, and expanding their reach alongside investment in a great variety of Māori solutions to the challenges we face are all part of the effort we make as a country to address the injustices of the past, to recognise our unique history and blended culture, and to build a better future. And we're proud of those efforts. And this Government will never lose sight of the reality that the things most Māori want are the same as most other New Zealanders want: they want a strong economy that will deliver jobs and incomes that will sustain our standard of living, they want decent housing, they want to feel safe in their communities, for their kids to have access to a great education that will set them up to succeed in the modern world, and they want to have access to quality healthcare when they get sick. The reality is, in each of those areas, Māori, on average, currently have worse outcomes than the average New Zealander, and we want to work together with Māori New Zealanders to change that. The work we're doing to fast track consents for infrastructure and new industries across the country are designed to raise income for Māori and all New Zealanders alike. And that's why Māori businesses are keen to be part of it. The effort to restore law and order and deal with truancy will help Māori most, because they are more likely to be victims of crime and to not attend school regularly. The amazing progress we've made to reduce smoking rates and to increase immunisation rates will help Māori most. When we think of a referendum in 2026—[ Interruption ] SPEAKER: Sorry, that member can take herself out of the House if that continues. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. When we think of a referendum in 2026, our preference is for the election to be a referendum on this Government's success, or otherwise, in making progress on those massive challenges. And I have every confidence that we, together, will make genuine progress in these areas. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill. I acknowledge that our leader, the Deputy Prime Minister, is wanting to be here but unfortunately is boarding a plane as we speak. I'm honoured to be able to give this contribution. I want to reflect on what it is we are here to debate. Despite the absence of any judge or academic being able to clearly define the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, the ACT Party believed it could. Despite what has been suggested in the purpose of the bill, legislation would have taken us back into the courts, which is the last thing this country needs. To put this issue before the courts is exactly what we needed to avoid. Alarmingly, it appears that in the political posturing this bill has brought to this House, no thought was given to the turmoil should a referendum fail. We saw the "car-koi" when it was clearly known that the bill would not pass, the political noise and upset that it created around communities—all this posturing and political point-scoring that distracted us from the real work we need to do as a nation. We have heard that in the forming of a coalition Government, there are compromises. There have been compromises, and New Zealand First knows that, because we have been part of those coalition agreements on many occasions. We know that we can agree to disagree on many aspects. Even if we agree, which we don't, and even if it were to pass—and it won't—a subsequent Parliament could change the definitions and so the cycle would continue. The unintended consequence of this legislation—something that does not need legislation. What would the courts do with this legislation? It is plain wrong to take the responsibility of determining the role of Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the highest court in the land to the judiciary, which would have been the outcome of this bill. Even Sir Kenneth Keith, the lawyer's lawyer, pointed out that it is undesirable for constitutional issues to get settled by courts. If we look back to our history, Sir Apirana Ngata was a strong advocate— Rawiri Waititi: Oh, here we go again. Hon CASEY COSTELLO: —for protecting the Treaty from being ratified by Parliament. I find it abhorrent that the mention of Sir Apirana Ngata's name is treated with such contempt in this House. [ Interruption ] SPEAKER: All right. The balance of this speech will be heard in silence. There are members down there who have been pushing it pretty hard who won't be staying for the balance of the debate if they keep on interfering. Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Let us do what is right for us as a nation. When I last spoke on this bill at its first reading, I talked of the dignity of this House. I talked of the obligation we all have in this House to ensure that this esteemed debating chamber is not censored. There is nothing to fear from challenging ideas and presenting different positions. This House is strong enough to withstand fractious debate as long as we protect the duty we have to honour the rules that guide us and respect the decisions that are made. New Zealand First may not support this bill being brought to this House, but we support our democracy and know we can challenge the status quo and debate something contentious. That is the democracy we must protect. The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill is one such contentious debate. It seeks to legislatively define the principles, the premise being that this bill will fill a silence on who we are as a nation, it would deliver unity, and resolve the debate in perpetuity. As I've said, perhaps that is not what we would achieve. New Zealand First has the longest uninterrupted position on the place the Treaty of Waitangi has in our collective identity as a nation. It is in the signing of this Treaty that our nation was formed. It started our journey and forged our identity. It is through the forming of our nation that we came together as a people over time, not instantaneously on 6 February 1840. We had much to resolve. We still do. Our iwi at the time did not consider themselves unified as one people, and in ceding sovereignty, no impact was immediately felt. In fact, very little changed, as our history will attest, immediately after the Treaty was signed. But we did change. This Parliament was established; laws were passed, and our great country flourished. One nation, one flag, one people—that is who we are. New Zealand First has been challenged. I have been challenged as to why this bill is not supported. Our message is simple. The foundation of our country was the Treaty that brought us together, not principles that were loosely fashioned in an effort to expedite settlement processes and divisive interactions between Māori and the Crown. Defining principles is not a debate that takes us forward or brings us together. To take us forward, we need to understand in each legislation what the obligation is that we owe to each other as citizens to give effect to the intentions of each law. In particular, how democratic Governments respond to issues raised by Māori—not the courts or tribunals, but by Māori to their elected representatives. What will deliver the outcomes needed to benefit our communities? That is what New Zealand First has committed to delivering, not entrenching a reinvention of the Treaty and what it means to New Zealand but providing a clear path forward to a better nation. We will deliver a pathway to economic prosperity for iwi to allow them to be unshackled from a narrative of grievance. I have spent years defending our rights as New Zealanders to be treated respectfully and equally before the law. Whatever journey brought us to this nation, we are owed the same rights in this House as a duty to ensure that is what our laws provide. We do not need new legislation in this space. We need to clarify, simplify, and verify our existing laws. To do this, we need to recognise and respect an honest account of our history. Importantly, an honest account of our history will make sure we are not oppressed by the racism of low expectations. When we can look to our tūpuna for what they achieved, we can silence the narrative that we are a nation of two peoples. When we look to our tūpuna, we can understand what personal responsibility means, what honour and dignity means, what sacrifice and hard work means. We can be aspirational, not divisive. This is the legacy that is to be honoured. I have spoken at the first reading of this bill about New Zealand First leader and Deputy Prime Minister the Rt Hon Winston Peters' reverence in speaking about our great Māori leaders who forged the path for a better New Zealand. Sir Apirana Ngata, Sir Peter Buck, Sir Māui Pōmare, Sir James Carroll all shared the position that there were no principles to the Treaty, and this remains New Zealand First's position. It is under the shared knowledge and understanding of our history that New Zealand First has remained committed to the purpose of the Treaty. As Dame Whina Cooper said, we signed the Treaty to become one people. We cannot allow the Treaty to be weaponised, and we cannot allow it to take a place that will forever position us as New Zealanders in conflict with each other as a result. That is the very antithesis of what was intended by the bill. This Parliament must hold fast to our democracy and retain supremacy over the direction we take as a country. New Zealand First knows this means clarifying our existing legislation. New legislation that entrenches the definition of the principles is not the solution for our country. It is not an end position. It would be a launching platform for those who gain political relevance by driving a narrative of victimhood in the absence of doing the hard work to improve outcomes. New Zealand First is the party of practical action. We know what New Zealanders are calling for and it is not more noise but a pathway to First World wages, top class education, a warm, dry home, and access to healthcare when they need it. We talk much in the House about what divides us—our quantum of Māori, whether we have a vanilla lens, or who is qualified to speak for who. That is what oppresses us. That is what deprives our future generations of achieving their potential. It is time to put this bill to rest. We have work to be done and serious decisions to be made. New Zealand First is up for the challenges that are ahead. We know we need to work effectively together and how important it is that Parliament is respected. If New Zealand First believed this bill had merit, we would have supported it. We do not. New Zealand First does not commend this bill to the House. SPEAKER: Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke—split call. HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Some of our greatest trees fell on this journey. From the West, [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] o Te Pāti Māori, Tariana Turia. To the East, [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] This speech has been the most daunting speech I've ever had to write, and I've said, "Oh no, what am I going to say now?" How are we supposed to voice the 270,000 written submissions, the 13,600 oral submissions, the 300,000 signatures on the petition, and the biggest hikoi, with 100,000 footsteps, marching to Parliament? How do we piece this all together in a five-minute speech? Here's how: we're not going to talk about the Treaty principles bill today. This bill was an undebatable and a non-negotiable debate, and the whole world knows our view on it. The real issue is not this bill, nor is it doing a haka or practising our indigenous customs in Parliament. The real problem is that this institution—this House—has only ever recognised one partner, one culture, and one language from one Treaty. When will the rules of this House acknowledge the laws of this land: tikanga and Te Tiriti o Waitangi? That is the real question of privilege here. At our darkest hour, we could have chosen to fight this, but we chose to survive this. This bill hasn't been stopped; this bill has been absolutely annihilated. Aotearoa New Zealand made it clear to our country that it does not support this bill. We are not divided, but united, with 90 percent of our country's submissions saying no. Why would we even entertain the 8 percent divisive rhetoric that this bill tries to achieve, and waste $6 million worth of taxpayers' money when that could have been given and spent on proper food for our tamariki? It was the voices from Times Square, New York, to Kaikohe; the streets of Oxford to Ngāruawāhia; the Waitangi Tribunal; the art on kākahu; the anonymous person who sponsored thousands of Te Tiriti books; the hundreds of submissions, from Whatawhata to Whangārei; and the call for unity with hui-ā-motu across the country. We could write hundreds of books on the oral submissions and their gems spoken from people like Tā Timoti Kāretu, Dr Kalo Mila, Maia Te Hira, and more, and on the rangatahi from Te Aupōuri who carried the banner all the way from Te Rerenga Wairua to the forecourt. This ignited an emotion that echoed with all walks of life, all races, all ages, and all genders across the world. Just remember, it was their voices—their powerful voices—that engaged to drown out this bill. So where to next? These past two years have been completely about survival. This next chapter needs to be about steps to thriving, and our road map to our next destination has never been so clear. For us to thrive, our job over the next few months will be to create bills, policies, and legislation to remove significant barriers that disallow Māori from accessing their basic rights—not privileges. Aotearoa hou isn't a fantasy. It's a place where there is unity, and the road map has no roadworks on it and it doesn't stop us from accessing our basic rights, like proper healthcare without a two-week wait. It's not having to decide whether to learn our language with student debt. It's being able to come home to build without having to wait three years for the Māori Land Court. It's Māori owning the first-ever supermarket to break down the supermarket duopoly. It's being able to swim in your tupuna awa, not chemical quarries. It's 14 Māori seats in Parliament. It's not having a five-year waiting list to enrol your tamariki in kōhanga. It's a place of having 4,507 Māori tamariki coming out of State care. It's having Maunga Kahurānaki back for its uri. This is tino rangatiratanga—control over our daily decisions that we make. Brick by brick, we will move from surviving to thriving. Ka mate, ka mate! Ka ora, ka ora! Ka mate te pire! Ka ora te iwi Māori! We had two choices: to live or to die. We chose to live. Ka ora tonu tātou āke ake ake! TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Mr Speaker, te iwi Māori, tangata Tiriti—that'll teach him. The Treaty of Waitangi Principles Bill has been an emotional rollercoaster. I know that for many of the people who made their voices heard, they didn't have the time or the money or the energy to give, and yet they showed up in droves. The whole process was so difficult because at every juncture in this journey, we gave them an opportunity to change their minds. We battled in the select committee, at every single meeting, "OK, New Zealand First and National Party, let's get rid of the bill, then, if you don't support it so much.", and those opportunities were turned down. It was a privilege to absorb all the knowledge and the wisdom from all the people who came to talk to us, from Ani Mikaere, to Vincent O'Malley, to the Hon Chris Finlayson. I felt so much shame and so much sadness in many of those submissions, as we had iwi come and talk to us—some so angry they were shaking. They couldn't even articulate the trauma that this whole process has rehashed. This was an example of Parliament sticking the knife in again, and again, and again. I was fighting for my life in the select committee. I remember very tense conversations even amongst Opposition parties, because there is more than one way to skin a cat and there is more than one way to kill a bill, and we all had different ideas, but we all knew that this needed to go in the bin. So I want to acknowledge, Duncan, Tracey, Ginny, and Tākuta for all of the mahi that we did representing the kotahitanga that our people want to see and deserve—and behind closed doors; hard, methodical, genuine mahi behind closed doors. As satisfying as it would be to say a massive "shame", I will leave it with a whakataukī that one of my tūpuna from Ngāti Awa said. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] I want to give a special mihi to all of my colleagues who have put in the mahi. We collected 13,000 signatures. We collected 640 postcards. We went into schools, we went into touch tournaments, we went to community hui, and we also went into the clubs and collected submissions. I also want to acknowledge my friend and colleague Steve Abel for being my tag team partner in all of the submissions. Steve represents a generation of people who were not lucky enough to be taught about Te Tiriti in schools but whose earnest dedication to learning and to fighting beside iwi to stop the ransacking of our coastline, our forests, and our whenua is what made him realise that our interests, tangata Tiriti, and te iwi Māori are not different. They are the same. So to every tangata Tiriti who made their voices heard and said that that little man does not represent your views, kia ora to you. I would like to acknowledge Eru Kapa-Kingi, Riana Te Ngahue, and Luke Fitzmaurice-Brown for bringing the kōrero to TikTok, bringing it to the new generation, to understand what the conversation meant and that their voices were important. I want to thank the Zanes, the Bloody Samoans, the Rawhitiroas, and the Shamias for bringing this conversation to the people and making it accessible. E te iwi, the fight is not over despite their crocodile tears. We still have a Government that is willing to use our mana as a cheap bargaining tool. Despite what the New Zealand First member has just told us, they are the ones who want to remove 28 general Treaty clauses across legislation. That is disgraceful. They are the ones who want to introduce the fast track bill, which will ride roughshod over important Treaty rights for our whenua. Attacks on indigenous people everywhere are happening right now. This is not unique to Aotearoa. This is part of a coordinated plan to undermine indigenous people everywhere. But I say to my first-nation brothers and sisters in Australia, as I do to the Palestinians who are having bombs dropped over their heads in Gaza right now, we stand together. They will not win. They have deep pockets but we have the people power and we will not be quiet, and this is a valuable lesson to leave our Tiriti alone. Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the now former chair of the hard-working Justice Committee, I wanted to focus my contribution today on the process that the committee went through in considering this bill. As I do so, I would like to acknowledge the work of the clerks—[ Interruption ] SPEAKER: OK, just hold it there. Some of the conversations that are going on now need to stop. Hon JAMES MEAGER: I'd like to acknowledge the work of the clerks and the Select Committee Services team on this bill. It was an interesting test case juggling three different clerks throughout this process—and the number of staff that we had helping us—but at all points they were upfront, they were clear in their work, and they provided consistent advice, sometimes in the face of quite significant severe personal reflections from members of the committee. So I wanted to acknowledge the work of the clerks and team on this bill. In doing so, can I also acknowledge the work of the committee, and MPs on the committee, who generally worked collegially and collectively in this work. It's helpful, I think, to point to Appendix B in the select committee report for the record of decisions made by the committee. I think the public should look at that appendix and should analyse it for the consistency and the amount of unanimity that actually existed in the committee. Most of the decisions in the committee, if not all of them, bar a few, were made unanimously on things like the length of submissions, the number of hours of submissions we would hear, how to treat form and template submissions, how we would set criteria for what submissions would be heard. They were all decisions that were agreed to unanimously by the committee, and it showed the collegiality and what can happen when members of the committee work together well. I did want to provide the public some reassurances after the past few weeks and some of the information that's been going around there; I want to reassure the public that every submission that has been made to the committee has been read by someone. It has been read by an official in the ministry, and the themes from those submissions integrated into the departmental report. I would encourage anyone out there who is interested in this process to read the departmental report. It is rich in information, it is rich in content, and it reflects the incredibly hard work done by the ministry officials in reading over 300,000 submissions and synthesising them into that document. Every submission that has been made to the committee has been available to all members of Parliament—not just those on the committee—at all times. I wanted to clear that up. There has been some misinformation out there that members have not had access to those submissions. Again, if you go through the record, you can see that we agreed to the process of accessing submissions from the clerks team. All members agreed to that, and it is very disappointing to see suggestions that suggest otherwise out there. Every submission that has been made to the committee that meets the criteria set by the committee will be published and tabled and released publicly for everybody to see so that they can see for themselves the content of those 300,000 submissions. Again, the committee has reported the bill back because there is no further work to do. There were some suggestions that this has been outrageously rushed back into the House, but following the end of 80 hours of submissions, over 529 people making oral submissions, at the end, all of the work programme has been completed. Members all agreed unanimously that no changes to the bill needed to be made. They all agreed that the Parliamentary Council Office did not need to draft a revision-tracked version. They all agreed that the report back would come soon. They all had three chances to consider the draft select committee report, and at the end every single member on that committee voted for it to be reported back to the House. So that needs to be placed on the record for the reassurance of the public. There is a lot to go through when it comes to considering what we went through on this bill. I wanted to touch on a few things, a few lessons, maybe, learnt by the Parliament if this was to ever happen again. In early January, the select committee was called back somewhat early from some people's holidays to deal with the issue of the parliamentary website crashing. Now, I want to provide some reassurances to the public that at no time has there been any suggestion of foreign interference or scurrilous behaviour in that process. It is simply a matter of what we all did throughout our careers and throughout university and school of leaving it to the last minute and the website not being able to handle the volume that came through on the very last day. That is it. No conspiracies, no interference—that's what happened. I think we learnt a lesson there in terms of setting the time for responding to submissions. Generally, submissions are set to be due by 11:59 p.m. at night. That, of course, meant that any issues with the process were unable to be answered by the select committee team and by the parliamentary team. So, moving forward, I think on bills of significance we should consider setting those deadlines to be the middle of the day so that people have a chance to deal with any of those issues. Questions remain throughout the public about how easy or how hard it was to make a submission, and there were complaints sent through to my email and to our office about the fact that it is a very straightforward process to make a submission. And I think there are questions to the House about whether or not there are restrictions put in place. I actually think it's a good thing that it is as simple as possible for the public to make submissions to the select committee. All you need to do is go to the Parliament website, enter your submission, and it is done. Alternatively, write in and write it in hard copy. There are questions around whether or not you need to provide ID and whether or not you can do them on other behalf of other people. I will put a thought out there—if you are wanting to make a submission to the Parliament as an individual or as an organisation, do that on your own steam. Do not rely on third-party organisations or third-party activists or political parties who go out there and want to collect your data and harvest your data and purport to provide your submission on your behalf. If you want to make a submission to this Parliament, use the process that is made available. It is easy, it is straightforward, it makes the clerk's job incredibly straightforward and easy and it means we do not run into issues of people having their submissions counted or not counted in terms of them being form submissions. I wanted to touch on the purpose of the select committee process because members today and throughout the process have talked about the numbers and talked about it being a record-breaking achievement. The purpose of the select committee process is not a poll. It is not a petition. It is not a referendum. It is not a platform for advocacy. It is a process to allow legislators in this House the opportunity to scrutinise legislation, to offer improvements, and to make amendments. That is what it is for. It is not an advocacy platform, it is not a performance piece, and members across the hall can laugh all they want, but if you are a parliamentarian and you are committed to the process of scrutinising legislation put forward by the executive, by the Government, you will take that process seriously. It is not a popularity contest. It is not a numbers game, and comments like it is "record-breaking" are very unhelpful to that process. In the time remaining available, I want to clarify some remaining pieces of misinformation that may be sitting out there in the public, and this is primarily a message for parliamentarians and how they conduct themselves within select committees: partial disclosure of incomplete information which is designed for political gain and results in confusion and anger in the public is deeply unhelpful for our democratic process. We have had to spend a significant amount of time and resource, including in the Clerk's Office, to deal with that misinformation being spread by members of Parliament, deliberately, for political purposes. So let me state once and for all, for the record: the appendix in the select committee report outlines every decision made by the select committee up until the deliberation phase. And there is only one side which has been consistent in our desire to ensure that people have had their say and their voices are heard throughout the entire process. Tamatha Paul is correct, they did try at every opportunity to stop people from having their say. We voted the bill through the select committee as per the coalition agreement; we did not oppose the open discussion. We called for public submissions and allowed the public to have their say; the Opposition voted for the bill to be reported back on the same day it was introduced to the select committee. We were the ones that called for oral submissions to be held; the Opposition called for only written submissions and to prevent every single oral submission from being held. That is part of the record. We were the ones that instructed the ministry to prepare a departmental report; the Opposition voted for no departmental report to be written, therefore no analysis of submissions and no opportunity for members of the public to have their submissions read and synthesised into the report. We were the ones that invited the Minister in charge of the bill to present and make his case to the select committee; the Opposition opposed that opportunity. Finally, we need to make it clear that the committee unanimously wrote to the Business Committee to seek the agreement to make sure that every single submission was counted, while the outstanding ones were processed for consistency with the Standing Orders, and it is the Opposition which opposed that process. I have tried my best to set the record straight on some of those issues and to provide some reassurances for the public out there. But I do finish my contribution by extending my gratitude to the hundreds of people who did take the time to present to us in person in select committee, and who did so with grace, with a sense of measure and with composure, and with a level of respect and manners that I don't think that was always afforded to them by members of our committee, and that is a great shame. For those individuals who were treated disrespectfully by members of Parliament when they gave their submission, I want to apologise to them. I want to thank all of those who sent kind words to the committee for the hard work undertaken in terms of considering this bill, whether they supported it or not. I'm glad that we are bringing this piece of legislation to a conclusion this afternoon. I'm glad that we can look forward to the task of rebuilding our economy and building a brighter, more prosperous future for all New Zealanders. The members opposite may laugh, but that is what we are focused on here. In saying that, we do not support this bill passing and I'll conclude my contribution by saying we do not commend this bill to the House. Hon Member: Total waste of time. Chlöe Swarbrick: Well, that's the Prime Minister! SPEAKER: That is the last outburst that member is to contribute to the House. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): I wanted to acknowledge the Harawira whānau, firstly, because this week they lost one of their matriarchs and one of their leaders—Hinewhare Harawira—and my marae hosted the tangi for a day and a night. I mention her because she was one of the biggest fighters against this bill. I mention her also because Te Pāti Māori turned up. They were there a little earlier than me. They gave a copy of the bill to put in the hole with Hinewhare tomorrow! So [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] But we remember her well and her fight for Māori rights. So we mihi to that whānau today, to Hone Harawira and the whānau, and they'll be burying her tomorrow. I want to also thank, today, the Justice Committee, particularly our leader over here—Duncan Webb and Ginny over here, who did a fabulous job. I also want to congratulate the chair, although I wasn't too happy with his speech today, but, without doubt, the next leader of the National Party and probably first Māori Prime Minister when the coup takes place in National over the next few months! The Treaty principles bill has highlighted the very worst of our democracy and, at the same time, the very best of our democracy. This race-baiting political stunt has been a right-wing obscenity masquerading as equality. You should be ashamed on that side of the House—they should all be ashamed—for allowing this hate into Parliament. What is most offensive is the way that the ACT Party and the political right have twisted the narrative to fit a racist agenda. The Treaty, as people have said, is not about racial privilege or racial superiority; it is and always has been about legal rights that Māori have in their contract with the Crown. Once and for all, for David Seymour's and his supporters' benefits, Treaty rights are not special privileges, or even extra rights, as he likes to paint them; they are rights that were in place before the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. The Treaty simply reaffirms those rights, the rights and acknowledge language, culture, identity, and property rights. It's ironic, isn't it, that the great advocates of property rights—the ACT Party—are so opposed to this. We get it now. Property rights only count if your Pākehā, but, if you're Māori, forget about them! Those indigenous rights didn't suddenly disappear when Māori signed the Treaty or when Mr Seymour dreamt up his Treaty principles bill. To therefore twist Treaty rights into some claim of apartheid is not only disingenuous, it is bad faith—and those two words sum up this whole disgraceful episode. That is bad faith. ACT never wanted a genuine debate on the Treaty, because this was never about a real engagement of ideas. This was always about whipping up racist hysteria, and calling that a debate. We heard David Seymour today, he compares his end-of-life referendum with this political stunt, and tries to claim that they're similar. No, they are not, Mr Seymour. The end-of-life referendum was a conscience issue; whereas rewriting the Treaty and forcing it upon the indigenous people, using the tyranny of the majority, is an outright assault on our history and on our rights. You cannot compare the end-of-life referendum with an attempt to erase Māori legal rights. On a philosophical level, the end of life is an individual right. Rewriting the Treaty is not an individual right; it is a property right that has enormous impacts that go well beyond the individual. Finally on referendums, Mr Seymour, they're not always the solution that you make out they are. Sometimes, believe it or not, the majority get it wrong. Your Government is an example of that! Let's look at referendums. Let's ask the Aboriginal people of Australia what they think of referendums when they were, sadly, defeated in their vote to recognise their indigenous rights last year. Or maybe the rainbow community—do we really think that homosexual law reform would have been passed in the 1980s? Give it a break. No chance. Or perhaps when my auntie Hemara Jackson, the nanny of young Hana over here, when she presented the Māori language petition over 50 years ago, talking about rights for te reo Māori, talking about te reo being an official language, do you think the public would have supported that? Do you think her and Ngā Tamatoa and all of our Māori language advocates would have been successful if this was a subject of a referendum? Not at all. Not a chance—not a chance. Here's the real question for all the brilliant lot in ACT: rather than test the legitimacy of the Treaty by a simple referendum, why not respect the decades of Treaty jurisprudence that's been developed by both Māori and the Crown, and, more particularly, the leading legal minds of this country? But, no, "I'm Always Right" Seymour refuses to do this. It's an absolute disgrace how he refuses to accept the words of our greatest legal minds, politicians, academics, and, of course, Māori. Very similar, I might add, are people who believe that the world is still flat and not round. That sums up him and his nutjob supporters. While ACT and their band of appalling supporters are the very worst of our democracy, the way people have responded in rejecting this is our democracy at our best. Of the over 300,000, 90 percent spoke against this lie. Over 100,000 around the country—100,000 marching to call the stunt out for what it was. The massive cross-section of civil society, our young people, our Pasifika whānau, our Pākehā allies, tangata Tiriti, the disabled community, the rainbow community, unions, churches, and academics all combined as one to cry out that the Treaty is our shared identity. [ Interruption ] SPEAKER: Yeah, just cut out that conversation down here. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The Treaty is our hope and is our shared unique feature that defines us. There are vastly more of us who see the Treaty as a positive rather than a weapon to divide us. ACT's hate has been defeated here today. Let us not forget all of this divisiveness, all this naked racism, all this spite and malice has been whipped up by them and a redneck agenda, sadly, in our view, that was allowed because the Prime Minister Christopher Luxon did not stand up against David Seymour. Wait a minute, he didn't even have to stand up—he didn't even have to stand up. As we found out, this wasn't even a bottom line in negotiations. So much for the great negotiator Christopher Luxon! It defies belief that we're talking about the Treaty principles today, given that we now know the full story behind the coalition agreements. Shame on the Prime Minister. Our nation required leadership on race issues, but the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, wanted to be the Prime Minister at all costs, blinded to ACT's demands—well, they weren't even demands in the end—and instead of resisting, he caved into them. Where is the Prime Minister now? That's the question. Let it be known that history is watching this day, and the people will not forget who turned up and who didn't and who led and who didn't. Our leader turned up. What a fabulous kōrero from him today. It was fabulous. His kōrero about coming together and celebrating our differences is resonating with our communities. His acknowledgment that Māori did not concede tino rangatiratanga—or sovereignty—is the first time that any leader of a mainstream party has admitted that in Aotearoa. Why? Because he knows 80,000 Māori are not going to give up rangatiratanga or their whole lives to 2,000 settlers. So, well done to our leader who shows courage which is, sadly, lacking from the Government at the moment. I said in the first reading that David Seymour was talking falsehoods, ignorance, and nonsense. I've had time to reflect on my speech; it may come as a surprise but my views haven't changed with Mr Seymour. I want to say again how proud I was of the select committee. I want to honour that committee today. So my final words in terms of my kōrero today: I have to say to David Seymour, and say to you straight—oh, he's left the building— Hon Members: No, no. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: He's over there. Well, I'll say to you wherever you are—oh, there you are, David Seymour: you're a disgrace to this House, and, when it comes to the Treaty of Waitangi, you will always be a liar. Kia ora, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: The member will withdraw and apologise for that statement. Mr Jackson, you need to withdraw and apologise for making that statement. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Well, Mr Speaker, if I was to withdraw and apologise, it would be an insult to 270,000 select committee submitters, who all think that Mr Seymour is a liar, also. SPEAKER: Good. That is your opinion. Leave the House. Hon Willie Jackson withdrew from the Chamber. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I don't think he was talking about his character; actually, David Seymour was lying on the ground over there. SPEAKER: Rima Nakhle. And we will go back to listening to speeches in silence. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Ahiahi mārie to everyone who has tuned in, and haere mai to all gathered in our parliamentary Whare, particularly my quasi-niece, Ripora, who has travelled all the way from South Auckland to witness this kaupapa. Welcome—habibtii. I rise to convey my whakaaro on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill in its second reading. I believe I've exercised my duty on the Justice Committee, as a member, as best I could, and I want to thank the former chair, the Hon James Meager—who sits beside me—and my colleagues across the committee for the work and for the passion that they put into this kaupapa. It was often very testing and quite emotionally taxing, but I felt privileged, throughout the process, to see, firsthand, New Zealand dialogue and history unfolding. I often share my National Party values, where appropriate, and here, if I may, I would like to share one of our values that's been around for a long time: equal citizenship and equal opportunity for all New Zealanders. The challenges of the Treaty are complex—they're complex—and as I've said, they're challenging. For over 185 years, we have grappled with these challenges together, and together we will continue to do so. This model has served New Zealand relatively well, and I truly believe that we are more open minded and a tolerant country because of our Treaty discussions. As we've heard earlier, and throughout this whole conversation, the National Party strongly asserts that a referendum on the Treaty would be a simplistic approach to an extremely complex and challenging issue, and so today, we are voting to ensure it will go no further—I say this respectfully to our coalition partners, but this is our strong view. As I look around the gallery, I see it filled with beautiful faces, many of which I am in the blessed position to know—friends sitting above from both sides of today's kōrero, friends whom I have sat down with in my home as we've shared Lebanese kai that I've cooked and discussed these challenging and complex issues that our country faces. We've disagreed, and we've agreed, and we've disagreed again, but all from a place of honesty, because we are in this together. That is what I hope we can take from today. I hope that we will continue approaching our relations on a measured, case-by-case basis, because that's what our profound history deserves. Let's underpin our conversations not with our desire for political points but rather with honest intentions for our collective future. Mātātoa, going forward—active, courageous, and valiant. I do not commend this bill to the House. CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Hearing speeches of vindication from that side of the House is very hard to swallow, because that has been this National-led Government that has allowed this ugly monster to rear its head in the light of day. The individual whose name this bill is in and his party have suggested the Treaty gives Māori different rights and privileges. By God, do I stand here privileged. I am the privileged product of generations of people who persevered in the face of breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, I am privileged to live on my whenua, and I'm privileged to speak tāku reo Māori, te reo ōku tīpuna—rights and privileges denied to too many Māori, rights and privileges that, through perseverance, we have managed to maintain and that this bill sought to undermine and failed. Aotearoa and, indeed, iwi taketake from around the world stood united against this backward-looking, divisive bill. And let's not forget resource wasting, [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Three-hundred thousand of you presented your opposition to this bill, and behind you was a nation united. The Aotearoa New Zealand we believe in organised and marched. Some of you, Aotearoa, simply changed your worldview adding momentum to this kaupapa. Mana Māori was never threatened by this bill. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] And, throughout this ordeal, people across Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and, indeed, Aotearoa have held fast to your vision for our future, and you're ready to get back to business—back to the business of ensuring an Aotearoa where our tamariki and mokopuna thrive in our ao Māori me te ao whānui, an Aotearoa where our whenua is nurtured and developed and whānau have a roof over their heads and our hauora is a priority, and an Aotearoa where you can earn a good living; back to the business of expanding the thriving Māori economy. And we're all about it. To get back to that business, e hoa mā, you need a Government that enables your moemoeā, and that ain't it. I said, in the first reading of this koretake bill, we do not need to change the Treaty; we need to change this Government. Toitū te Tiriti! Part one: tick. Let's get on with part two. They asked for the election to be a referendum. Let's deliver. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] I stand once more with pride and privilege to condemn this bill, and I repeat: this Government must not be vindicated. It is this Government that allowed this bill to cause the divisive conversations throughout Aotearoa. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I had an opportunity to participate in the first reading of this bill, and that debate was a momentous debate in terms of how this House views this legislation that's proposed before us. At that time, I made it clear that, in my view, over successive decades, New Zealand has grappled with how to deal with the Treaty. It's been a long, continuous, and ongoing debate, and that will be the case after this bill has been put to rest. That debate will continue, that discussion will continue—indeed, it will continue long after all of us have left this place. So while we don't necessarily always agree, successive National Governments have always worked well with Māori on Treaty issues, and we've always ensured that there are equal citizenship rights and equal opportunity for all New Zealanders. So the challenges that we confront as a nation around the Treaty are complex, and it's just not realistic to suggest that nearly 200 years of debate, discussion, protest sometimes, informed debate, education, and input from so many New Zealanders over all those years, should be settled just with the stroke of one legislative pen. It's too blunt, it's too simplistic, and it risks, in reality, actually stoking grievance and driving division. I don't think that's good for our nation. I don't think that that helps us achieve the goals and aspirations that we all seek to achieve by coming to this place. National takes, always, the more difficult and realistic, practical approach when it comes to working together, and we do so by working through issues in relation to the Treaty on a case by case basis. For instance, the reversal of a number of divisive co-governance policies from the previous Government, that would have, in fact, contributed to worse economic and social regulatory outcomes. For instance, Three Waters and the Māori Health Authority. We've also instructed Government agencies in the term of this Government to deliver public services based on needs, and working with iwi and other providers where specific needs exist amongst Māori and other communities. We are continuing to establish and progress Treaty settlements to address the historical wrongdoings. In another example, restoring the rights of communities to determine whether to introduce Māori wards after the previous Government denied local constituents the opportunity to do so; that's another example of a case by case approach to how we address those issues. So having participated in the first reading debate, having watched closely the work of the Justice Committee chaired by my friend and colleague the Hon James Meager, ultimately, I want to reiterate in my closing moments of my contribution in this debate that this National Party that I am proud to be a member of, our focus and the focus of this coalition Government remains firmly and steadfastly on improving outcomes for Māori and non-Māori. We do that by rebuilding our economy, by restoring law and order, and by delivering better public services for all New Zealand. This bill achieves none of that. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Well here we are, finally getting ready of this divisive and wasteful bill. Now, unlike James Meager, I'm not going to spend 10 minutes whining about process, but I will say two things. Firstly, there are 105,000 submissions that aren't on the parliamentary record to date, and to suggest that that's all OK is false. There was a room down in the corner with 24 boxes of hand-written and typed submissions, hard-copy submissions, that you had to go in and rifle through if you wanted to find something. And if you wanted to find a particular submission, you had to name it, you had to name the submitter. I'm sorry, but I don't know 307,000 people. What's more, whilst that process was still ongoing, the chairman of the Justice Committee moved the motion to report the bill back to the House 40 days before it was due—whilst we were still working through the submissions and putting them on the record. That is shabby. That is shabby process. But not as shabby as what the Government has done, and the Prime Minister has done, in letting this bill come to the House, because this is a bill that the Prime Minister had the gall to stand up and say that it's not going to pass, and to then bring it to this House is disrespectful to this Chamber. This Chamber's time is valuable and there should be put before this House laws which are seriously being considered, not flying up the flagpole some divisive bill. But I do want to pay tribute to those submitters—all of those people. And I must say it was humbling—not only to see the people who came in person from across the community but also to read some of those written submissions as well. And I want to pay respect to the diversity of the views—the people who came and gave their whakapapa and told their stories and expressed their vehement opposition to the bill, not in a way that David Seymour would understand but in a way that came from a long history. Not an academic tradition that I'm familiar with, but I engaged with it and I learnt from it. And I want to pay respect to the new immigrants who came and said, "I'm proud to be here and to participate in this country, and I understand the Treaty helps me understand my place in this community." And I see David Seymour's already on Twitter saying that he still doesn't have a good reason for why this bill is being turned around. Hon David Seymour: Try giving us one. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, I'll give you one—I'll give you one—it's a lie. The bill is a lie because it says one thing, and the truth is another. It says that these are the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi—and they're not. As Chris Finlayson said, you can't legislate to make the world flat. The fact is you cannot legislate the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi out of existence—they might be constitutional truisms or they might be undermining the customary position of iwi in our country, but they're not the Treaty principles. You can't make up the underlying fabric of the Treaty. So it's absolutely fatuous to suggest that this bill reflected, in any way, the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I want to address head-on—I want to address head-on—two other fallacies which underpin this bill. The first is that his stooges would front up to the Justice Committee and say this is about living in a liberal democracy. Their concept of a liberal democracy was shallow and impoverished because all it meant was one person, one vote. What it didn't mean was a respect for human rights; a recognition of indigenous people in the place where they belong. What it didn't recognise was the rights of minorities. So what we had was an argument which was about a hundred years out of date. And that's about where the ACT Party are. The irony is that all of the advice that was received, not just submissions but the thoughtful advice, pointed this out. And even the Cabinet Manual, a document which isn't a political document, makes it really clear that there is a balance to be struck between the rights of the majority—majority power in a place like this—and minority rights; the protection of fundamental social and constitutional values. But the ACT Party's not interested in that. They're interested in a radical individualism which doesn't recognise that there are communities of interest, that there are differences between people, and that in a modern liberal democracy, as Bronwyn Hayward so thoughtfully put, there is a duty to protect those people who are vulnerable, to respect indigenous rights, and to ensure that the majority does not oppress the minority. So that's what a modern, functioning liberal democracy is. Hon Kieran McAnulty: They don't want that. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: They don't want that, Kieran McAnulty, they want the opposite. They want they want to go back a hundred years and live in a radical libertarian world. The other argument they want—and again, I want to go head-on here, the ACT member on the committee would constantly put to members, put to submitters the following question: does the Treaty of Waitangi give different rights based on ancestry? Just an absolute trope of inequality. Now the lie in that, the falsehood underlying that statement, is that difference is inequality—and it's not. Now, there are all kinds of ways we can be different. We can have kaupapa Māori health services or schools or social services. And in fact, anyone who knows the area will know that you don't even have to be Māori to access them. They're for everyone. But to suggest that to deliver services in a particular way to best serve communities is in some way unequal is an absolute fallacy. Time and again, we heard the resource management trope come up. David Seymour himself mention it today. Now, we pressed on that, because if there's something there, we wanted to know. We asked the question: what is the special advantage that Māori have under the Resource Management Act? No one could put their finger on it. If it's a special advantage for mana whenua to be asked about a project that might impact their customary rights, well that's a world I want to live in, because that's actually respecting customary rights and property interests. And you should be respecting that as well. The suggestion that Māori are precluded in some way is just false. The fallacy is that the provision of services should be in a non-Māori way. What that does is essentially exclude the reality that there is more than one way of doing things, that we can do things which are equal and different. That's not appropriate. So what we have here is a situation where 300,000 people have stood up, and many people at select committee spoke up, but over there, they stood by. They stood by and did nothing, and they actually presided over a piece of legislation which has been exceedingly divisive. Now, you can talk about a conversation—and we are prepared for a conversation, and I'm proud to stand with my colleagues, my Māori colleagues who have spoken today here from the Labour Party, from the Greens, and from Te Pāti Māori. But to have an ill-thought-out bill based on premises which are fundamentally racist is not having a constitutional conversation. The time is to make up, to talk about how we honour the Treaty in a more fulsome way, and about how we live together and address some of the gross inequalities which continue in our society. But to put a bill into the House that we know is never going to be passed, so that we can see some of the hateful rhetoric coming out, is simply divisive, wasteful, and wrong. I'm proud to speak today, but not proud of what this House has done but proud of what New Zealand has done. It has come out in its thousands and hundreds of thousands to say, "We'll have no part of this." CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): My colleagues have already said that this law is a simplistic tool that does not address the underlying issues and they have highlighted the steps that the National-led Government has been taking to address the genuine concerns that Kiwis have, so now let me turn to the vision that National has for our country. We want a thriving, united New Zealand, where every Kiwi enjoys equal opportunity and equal citizenship and takes pride in our shared future. Kiwis do best when we are working together in a spirit of unity and of mutual respect. At the heart of our nation's foundation lies the Treaty of Waitangi, the document that sets out the framework for the relationship between Māori and the Crown. It is our duty to ensure the Crown upholds its obligations under the Treaty and that historical grievances are addressed in a fair and in a just manner. As my colleagues have also said, while we may not agree on every issue, successive National Governments have worked constructively with Māori on Treaty matters, always ensuring equal citizenship and equal opportunity for all New Zealanders. This is a commitment we will continue to uphold, addressing each case and issue on its own merits, always striving for better outcomes for all. National also has a proud record when it comes to Treaty settlements, having made more progress than any Governments in resolving historical grievances. More importantly, we are now seeing the benefits of this progress. The Māori economy has seen remarkable growth, with its asset base rising from $69 billion in 2018 to $119 billion in 2023. This is not just a statistic; it represents real, tangible benefits for communities across New Zealand, particularly in the regions, where Māori are making a significant economic contribution. The work we've undertaken in settling grievances is vital to ensuring and securing a prosperous future. We must continue to build on this foundation, ensuring all Treaty settlements are completed and implemented, with benefits flowing through to iwi, to communities, and to New Zealand as a whole. We must keep moving forward. In the past year alone, we've achieved notable success. Through partnership with Māori health organisations, over 69,000 vaccinations have been delivered to New Zealanders. We've seen more than 20 Māori-led or Māori-partnered projects placed on the fast-track list. We've also committed over $200 million to Māori housing providers and helped nearly 2,000 children, many of them Māori, move out of emergency housing. When Māori succeed, New Zealand succeeds. Our fates are intertwined. Together we are working towards a better, more prosperous New Zealand for the future and for the future generations of all Kiwis. National does not commend this bill to the House and it will vote against it. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill be now read a second time. Ayes 11 ACT New Zealand 11. Noes 112 New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion not agreed to. SPEAKER: Before I announce the vote, following this announcement, a waiata has been agreed to. The Ayes are 11; the Noes are 112. The motion is lost. [ Applause ] That's enough. If there is to be a waiata, now is the time. Waiata—"Tūtira mai ngā iwi" [ Disturbance occurred in the gallery ] SPEAKER: No, no, no. Fella, excuse me. Good boy—on your way. [ Interruption ] Someone come and help him out. I just want to say to the whole gallery, who are applauding: that sort of outburst does not help us move forward in the tikanga of this House—most unhelpful. © Scoop Media Advertisement - scroll to continue reading Using Scoop for work? Scoop is free for personal use, but you'll need a licence for work use. This is part of our Ethical Paywall and how we fund Scoop. Join today with plans starting from less than $3 per week, plus gain access to exclusive Pro features. Join Pro Individual Find out more Find more from Hansard on InfoPages.
