Restoring Citizenship Removed By Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 Bill

Members, in accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, I call on members’ order of the day No. 1.

I move, That the Restoring Citizenship Removed By Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 Bill be now read a second time.

I want to begin by paying my respects to elders both past and present, and to those who are with us in this House this morning. I acknowledge the reverend ministers, their families, and community leaders that are present, and I note the presence of Falema‘i Lesa, who took the original case to the 1982 Privy Council. I acknowledge you all today. Talofa lava. Welcome to your place.

Fa‘afetai tele lava, meitaki ranuinui to the communities across the country that hosted me and other MPs to talanoa about this bill. I visited Dunedin twice, spent some time in Christchurch, in the Wellington region, and, of course, in Auckland, some of whom are here today. This bill is part of a longer journey of which my part and the part of the Green Party is just a small part that many people here today have walked for many years. I acknowledge their continued advocacy. These communities asked important and often detailed questions, some of which I’ll admit I didn’t have the answers to. In Christchurch, for example, I met with the Pacific Youth Leadership and Transformation Council— PYLAT—who hosted a talanoa fono, which included elders and youth, to discuss the bill, and I note that I just got a message from Josiah Tualamali‘i this morning—not too sure if he made it into the gallery. At that fono, they came prepared and with lawyers! I had some of the answers, but not all of them, but I suspect I had more answers than Hamish Campbell, who joined me that night.

Having this bill go to the select committee to give us time to work through those questions is really important. I want to thank the members of the Governance and Administration Committee. I think we worked together collegially, and what I meant by that is when I tended to show up there, someone was shouting cheese scones and coffee, and I might actually owe them one. I won’t subject them to my culinary skills, or lack thereof, but I think I do owe them one.

When I put this bill into the biscuit tin, I thought it was going to be easy; it wasn’t. I appreciate the skills and acknowledge the skill set of Rachel Boyack, who helped to navigate the committee to a deliberation. I note that although not all parties supported the first reading, I did appreciate the Government members on the select committee who engaged with the community and worked with their caucus to strategise a way forward that worked for them. Of course, the real heroes, as many members will know, of any select committee, are the clerks and the officials, noting that this was led by the Department of Internal Affairs; Parliamentary Counsel Office, with their very articulate drafting; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; the Ministry for Pacific Peoples; and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

There were around 24,581 individuals and groups that submitted on the bill, including many from Samoa and across the world. One submission represented the views of 5,951 other people. The involvement of young people, I think, is something that is important to note. It made me hopeful and confident about the future of our Pasifika communities, knowing that our future is in strong and capable hands.

To our Samoan communities, I want to say they represented you well; they represented us well. I note that when you speak to the heart and it connects and people are open to receiving that communication, as our young people demonstrated at the select committee process, then the mind can follow. This is what our young people did. I’m not too sure whether that was the experience for the other members of the select committee, but that was certainly how it was for me.

For example, we had Fili Fepulea‘i-Tapua‘i, who shared that “I want to emphasise that although this is an issue for elders, it is very much an intergenerational issue. For context, it can be said my whole life has been shaped by trying to get this citizenship restored for our elders and Samoan community. When I was five months old … my father marched down the streets of Wellington … [with] the march … Mau a Sitiseni 2003.” I also remember remarking to the Hon Jenny Salesa that when her daughter Esmae Salesa addressed the select committee, there might have been a bit of dust flying around and getting into the eyes of some of the select committee members. It was amazing and awesome to have many of our elders join with their mokopuna in that process.

The submissions presented several reasons for supporting the bill. Among them was reparation for historical injustices such as the Dawn Raids, also around fairness and upholding human rights. At the heart of this bill, it is about fairness, upholding human rights and equality. Noting also many submissions talked about the significant contributions that Samoans make to New Zealand, and I quote this from Losi Aniseko: “The Samoan community in New Zealand has played a vital role in enriching the country’s multicultural landscape. From arts and culture to sports and business, Samoans have made significant contributions that enhance the fabric of New Zealand society.” Other submissions talked about the important role of approving international relations, noting that we are part of a family of Pacific nations, and making sure that we treat that relationship with respect; we treat that relationship with alofa and aroha is so important.

One of the non-Samoan groups that reached out to me, quite a lot were Māori. They reached out to me in support of this bill. I remember stopping and talking to a Māori man who said, “I support this bill. My mokopuna is Samoan and that is why I support this bill.” That came through in some of the submissions at the select committee as well. I note a quote here from Dr Will Flavell, who noted the links to the Treaty of Waitangi: “This bill is more than a correction of a past policy; it reaffirms our commitment to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. … By supporting this bill, we are restoring citizenship and honouring the spirit of kotahitanga and whanaungatanga that defines us as New Zealanders.”

Many submissions also said that the passing of the bill honours the Treaty of Friendship between Samoa and New Zealand. The Vinepa Trust put it this way: “At the heart of this bill is about doing the right thing. … It’s about honouring Article 1 of the Treaty of Friendship, signed in 1962, which reads ‘Relations between New Zealand and Western Samoa shall continue to be governed by a spirit of close friendship.’”

There are other submissions that talked about the need to improve the Treaty of Friendship, and I have this quote from Tailo Duffy: “the bill acknowledges the need for the New Zealand Government to consult with the Samoan Government to amend the Treaty of Friendship between the two nations. This amendment is necessary to reflect the restored citizenship rights and ensure continued strong relations between New Zealand and Samoa.”

In the select committee, we all agreed that the bill should move forward and that it should be supported, and I am grateful for that, but we did have some differences of opinions, particularly around who this would apply to. Many submissions came forward about trying to widen the scope of the bill; in particular, widening the bill to include descendants born before 1962, and we noted that that could be about 19,000 people. This points, to me, the importance of the select committee process, because that was new information for me. The widening of the scope was supported by ourselves, in the Greens, and also the Labour Party.

We also proposed to amend, rather than repeal, the bill, and this includes having a name change of the bill from the original name to the Citizenship (Western Samoa Restoration) Amendment Bill. Another area that we didn’t agree on was around the application of fees. Here I want to note the contribution, the significant contribution, of Lemauga Lydia Sosene, who has been a strong advocate in this process. I’m sure that select committee members and all members around the House would wish her all the best on her journey to recovery. I wouldn’t be able to do it as articulately as her, but she did point to the fact that if citizenship was taken away, then people should not have to pay for it. That, of course, needs to be balanced out by the work that Government departments need to do as well. We have come this far, and I know that the community wants us to go further, and, of course, we in the Greens are open to that because there are a few more stages to traverse.

I want to mihi to the community and to acknowledge their contributions, but also to note that the Greens remain committed to equality, committed to Pasifika justice, and we will continue to uphold that.

I want to close with the words of my friend Faʻanānā Efeso Collins, who I spoke about in the first reading, when he said: “E le tu faʻamauga se tagata—no one stands alone, no one succeeds alone, and no one suffers alone.” I added to that, “we succeed best when we succeed together”. Faʻafetai tele lava. Meitaki ranuinui.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The member who has just resumed his seat, Mr Tuiono, has graciously acknowledged many others in relation to this, and it’s appropriate that he do so. I would like to start my contribution by acknowledging the member himself. For those who are less familiar with this place—which, as Mr Tuiono points out, this is your House and it does belong to you—you may not be aware but our colleague is ordinarily in the position of presiding officer, so technically we often address many of our contributions to him in that way while speaking more generally about a bit of legislation or other matter before the House. On this occasion, it is you specifically, sir, who I wish to acknowledge for your leadership in guiding a conversation and taking this House, this nation, and indeed many in Samoa on a journey.

You are right to have acknowledged that the journey does not end here in terms of the parliamentary process apart from anything else, but it is an important step along the journey—and we thank you for walking alongside all members of this House, particularly through that select committee process, which you’ve acknowledged. I would be remiss if I didn’t also acknowledge and endorse and echo your welcome to those who are gathered here today. Elsewhere in this building, there are many activities. One, not very far from here, is a meeting of construction lawyers and we were treated to the beautiful sounds of a song, perhaps a hymn, being sung, no doubt by you fine people, and there was surprise on the attendees’ faces that Parliament always has a choir at 9 o’clock in the morning to serenade us—if only that were so. I do want to acknowledge the colour and the energy and the passion that you have brought to this process, including by your presence today.

I also want to acknowledge the Governance and Administration Committee members and, obviously, the select committee process is the particular aspect of the law that we are acknowledging today as the bill is passing its second reading. We will talk—no doubt, all of us—about the mechanics of that process, and about some of the debate we had, the discussions, and the agreements that were reached by majority or consensus. I think it’s important to acknowledge, as much as the substance of what has been arrived at, the process and the method of that engagement. It seems to me, from the outside, not having been a member of that committee, that the select committee has engaged internally but also externally in good faith to try and understand the issues at play and to arrive at the most sensible way forward.

On that note, I should note before my time elapses any further, that the National Party has agreed to support the bill. We think that the changes that were able to be made during the select committee process in the name of introducing certainty where there had been a couple of areas of uncertainty, both as the substance and also in the method of engaging with the Government of Samoa, has been really helpful conversation and we think we are now in a good place, and we’re grateful to the select committee.

Its chair, Rachel Boyack, has been acknowledged, and rightly so. I’ve had good experiences with that member on that committee previously on other matters that are also, as Mr Tuiono has rightly said, a matter of speaking to the heart so that the mind will follow. “Governance and Administration” sounds very technocratic in its nature of its consideration but no less a matter than the human significance of membership of a community, membership of a nation, expressed through citizenship, can be discussed in that body, and it seems to me they have exercised the care and diligence that is appropriate for this bill, not only in terms of the importance of the work but also in a way that reflects its seriousness and its significance to all involved.

From a National Party point of view, we have reached a point where we can agree to the provisions of this bill and be very pleased to be able to do so. My colleague Cameron Brewer deserves acknowledgment. He has engaged with National Party colleagues very diligently, and I know that he, and also Tim Costley and Tom Rutherford, have entered into the spirit of that discussion with a mind to arriving at the right place in a very creditable manner.

The three themes that I wish to focus on in my remaining time go to consultation, certainty, and comity. Each of these is important in its own right, and I think that coming together and taking it as a whole represents the process by which we have wished to arrive at in being able to support this bill.

The first is consultation. Members will be aware—and those present and those watching as well will probably be aware—that there is Treaty of Friendship between the Governments of New Zealand and Samoa that imposes an obligation of consultation and discussion. I think it’s been helpful, through the select committee engagement, through various channels, to be able to interact with the Governments of Samoa and other key figures in that proud nation to understand the effect of the bill, both in its original form and as now amended, on that nation. Of course, it’s right that we acknowledge the people-to-people links, the community links between New Zealand and Samoa and within New Zealand, acknowledging, of course, the special role that the Samoan community has played in New Zealand over many years in many different spheres.

Of course, it’s also the case that the Government of the nation must engage in good faith with that other nation, and New Zealand hasn’t always been a good partner, a good neighbour, and a good friend, including the Pacific, and we’re mindful of the need not to do a thing that we would consider maybe in some ways very helpful to the people of a nation, in a way that would perhaps cause consternation with the Government of that nation.

In the spirit and indeed the requirement of the Treaty of Friendship with the Samoan Government, from a New Zealand perspective, we can say that we have engaged with them to understand a level of comfort, from their point of view, in terms of what it might mean if more Samoan citizens were to become New Zealand citizens, and not wishing to take from them in a way that reflects an addition to this country but to reach a compromise in terms of the eligibility but also that understanding of what it might mean for both nations.

I think that consultation has taken place now in a way that’s appropriate. It’s unusual for a member’s bill to amend the external relations of a nation, and that was a point of nervousness from the National Party’s point of view. Through that select committee deliberation, including the good-faith engagement with the member himself, I think we can feel satisfied that we’ve made a good-faith effort as the Government of New Zealand and as the Parliament of New Zealand, more generally, to reach that place.

The second point is certainty, and certainty obviously reflects the fact that we want the law to be as clear as possible. We would not be doing the nation of New Zealand or indeed the citizens of Samoa and would-be citizens of New Zealand from Samoa a service—we would be doing them a disservice, in fact—if we were to have a law that was uncertain as to the eligibility and application of the law. Of course, in citizenship, there are complex rules around succession, for want of a better phrase, and eligibility questions aren’t always clear. Sometimes they do end up in the court, and, of course, the slightly unfortunate history of this legislation is that it responds to a court ruling that had been made in a way that was surprising and that many have said was, frankly, unfair. We don’t wish to compound the error by having a piece of legislation that’s unclear as to its effect going through further generations, and I think that point’s been reasonably well made. As I say, I think the point the select committee arrived at and that this House appears ready to arrive at reflects the desire for that certainty.

Finally, on a similar note, another item I promised to mention is comity, which is the relationship between the Parliament and the courts. It’s sometimes the case that Parliament needs to change a law to clarify its original intent or, of course, has the ability as being the democratic arm of Government to make laws that are different from the way that courts have interpreted or applied previous other laws of this place. Certainly, in this case, it was helpful, I think, for us to look at the proposition of the member’s bill before us as an exercise in restoring the original intent of the legislation proper, this being an amendment bill, as the member’s referred to. We respect the fact that courts always have the right to make decisions on matters before them. Nevertheless, Parliament is sovereign and it’s right that we should have the ability to come together and make a law that we think reflects the right and true nature of what the people of New Zealand intend in this matter.

I have little time left, so I really just want to emphasise, again, that from a National Party point of view, we’re pleased to be able to support the bill. Others will speak, probably more helpfully than I would be able to, in terms of the detail about how those decisions were arrived at in the select committee process, but I do wish to acknowledge the efforts of all those involved, including in particular the member himself, but also all those who have engaged in good faith through a process that can be opaque and intimidating but nevertheless is capable at arriving at a good place, and I think we have. We commend this bill to the House.

Mili mili mili mili mili mili mili, pati a, pati a, lua pati, lua pati, tolu tolu fa. Hey! Hey! [Response from public gallery] Thank you, Mr Speaker, for indulging me; I just wanted to make sure we had some Samoans in the House today! Ou te faatalofa atu ma le faaaloalo, malo le soifua maua ma le lagi e mama. You don’t know where you are going unless you know where you have come from—I repeat: you don’t know where you are going unless you know where you have come from.

I am proud to be able to stand in the second reading of this member’s bill to lend our support to the member Teanau Tuiono for this bill. I want to acknowledge you, my 682 brother, again, for bringing this to the House.

I’m going to use my contribution to take us through the past, and my fellow members will take us through to the future. As many members know, Samoa is an archipelago of islands covering just under 3,000 square kilometres of land in the South Pacific. The population in Samoa, as at 2023, was 218,019 people. The population in New Zealand, as part of the 2023 census, is 213,069, over half of the Pacific population in New Zealand. Gagana Samoa is the third most spoken language here in Aotearoa New Zealand, behind English and te reo Māori. We Samoans are very, very proud people. We’re also humble, but we’re very proud—whether that be in our homeland of Samoa or here in our new home of Aotearoa New Zealand.

We do have a close connection to New Zealand, to Aotearoa, both through our whakawhanaungatanga, with our tuakana-teina relationship with tangata whenua—I will let Adrian Rurawhe argue whether he is tuakana or teina; I still believe we are tuakana, but we can leave that for another day—and also with the Treaty of Friendship. However, there have been many times in the history of New Zealand and in that relationship with Samoa where that friendship has been trampled on. The Talune that landed in Apia Harbour in 1918 led to the deaths of thousands of Samoans—22 percent of the population was wiped out through the flu. The Mau movement, Mau a Pule, where, on Black Saturday, on 28 December 1929, a movement was brought together to protest and to organise around some of the atrocities that were happening with the New Zealand administration of Samoa. That movement was pushing for independence. Tupua Tamasese Lealofi III—this man here in white [Holds up photograph]—was assassinated on Black Saturday, 28 December. This man is the former MP Anae Neru Leavasa’s great-grandfather, and next to him is my great-grandfather Timu Laufa. That is the connection to New Zealand and the Parliament and the history.

In the Dawn Raids in the 1970s, Pacific people, Samoan, Tongan, and Māori—basically, if you were brown—were targeted, questioned, arrested, and deported, despite the fact there was a concerted effort by the New Zealand Government calling our Pacific people to New Zealand to help with manufacturing, to help fill the labour force gaps.

The Privy Council case of Lesa v Attorney General—that is why we need to know our past in order to go to the future. I looked to the Privy Council case of Lesa v Attorney-General, which led to the Citizenship (Western Samoa) Bill, and in the third reading of that bill, moved by the Hon Jim McLay, who was the Attorney-General at the time, he said, “Equally important is the fact that for 60 years, no one believed that Western Samoans were British subjects owing allegiance to the British Crown.”—no one believed that Western Samoans were British subjects owing allegiance to the British Crown. But he was wrong: Falema‘i Lesa believed she had that citizenship. As many people in the House know, that went straight through to the Privy Council, and at the very first reading of that Citizenship (Western Samoa) Bill, the Hon Jim McLay, the Attorney-General, said, “The Privy Council’s interpretation of the 1928 Act remains as the law of New Zealand unless and until legislation reverses it.”—remains as the law of New Zealand unless and until legislation reverses it.

That legislation, the Citizenship (Western Samoa) Bill—and now Act—reversed it, and that’s how we come to today. The amendments that will be put forward from the Governance and Administration Committee right that wrong—right that wrong—that no one believed that there was allegiance to the British Crown; right that wrong that Samoans born during that period of 1924 to 1928 were not New Zealand citizens. Falema‘i Lesa proved that wrong.

Today, the lesson, really, for our New Zealand Government and for this Parliament, is that there is a crisis already happening in Samoa today. Yes, we have the Commonwealth Heads of Government there today, but we also have one of our own navy ships that has sunk in the reef off the coast of Safata and Si’umu. We need to ensure that we do not trample on the friendship again, and that we right that wrong. I acknowledge that there is work being done, but please listen to the Samoan people on the ground—please listen to those villagers who cannot fish; please listen to those villagers who cannot put food on their families’ tables. Let’s ensure that we don’t continue to trample on this friendship.

I really wanted to ensure that this House knew the history, that we knew where we had come from so that we know where we are going to. Our members will talk to the bill in more detail. They’ll talk to the amendments which the Labour Party will, hopefully with some support—which we hope to get in the committee of the whole House process—continue to advocate for.

I wanted to ensure that we put on the record today that Samoa is a proud people. We organised when our families were dying as a result of the influenza pandemic. Our families came together, took the dead, put them on the road, buried them—we organised then in order to save the rest of our population. Our Samoan people organised—when we were not happy with the atrocities by the New Zealand administration, we organised with the Mau movement, we organised so that we could get our independence. We organised during the Dawn Raids, through the Polynesian Panthers, here in New Zealand, with the people in the communities and the churches that met in order to protest what was happening to our people here in New Zealand, as their homes were getting raided in the early hours of the morning and as the dogs barked at their door. We organised when the Manawanui was sunk, in order to support our villagers who are currently experiencing this issue right now.

In the same way, we organised for this bill, with over 24,000 submissions. We organised in New Zealand. We organised in Australia. We organised in Samoa. We organised in the United States. Let that be a lesson to our Parliament today. Yes, I am a proud parliamentarian who represents the electorate of Mana, but I am Samoan first, and, today, we will continue to organise. The Labour Party will continue to support our Samoan community as they organise around the issues that matter to them. For the 24,000 submitters who organised to ensure that their voice was heard in this bill: we hear you, and that is why we should never underestimate a Samoan. We’re very nice, we’re very smiley, but we’re very smart, and we forgive. We are humble in our forgiveness, but we do not forget. To all of our community members: fa‘afetai tele lava; thank you for your organisation. It is my privilege to be able to stand in support of this bill and to carry your voice in this House, the New Zealand Parliament.

Debate interrupted.