e Pire mō Ō-Rākau, Te Pae o Maumahara/Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill., Ō-Rākau on 31 March 1864 was one of the most significant events in history—and her-story—of Aotearoa New Zealand, Ō-Rākau being the last battle in the war in the campaign of the Crown in Waikato. Compounding the loss of life experienced by whānau, hapū, and iwi who fought there was the loss of whenua itself. The year after the battle, in this Whare, the Crown confiscated hundreds of thousands of acres of land in the Waikato—1.2-plus million acres—similar in nature to our whānau in Taranaki, including the site at Ō-Rākau., This legislation seeks to return the whenua te whenua i rere ai te toto , Ō-Rākau site for themselves, ā-tinana, ā-kanohi [in person, with their own eyes], to see and feel for themselves the profound importance of this place. I acknowledge and thank the members of the committee for their diligence and for their mahi, and I thank the many who made submissions and brought forward the names of tūpuna to be recorded in the legislation. I mihi out to our uncles and aunties, Dr Robert Joseph, and others who have done that tireless work—and it hasn’t finished. I’m sure in the future we will also find other tūpuna who we forgot or who didn’t quite make it into this legislation, and we can add them., They heard, as many of you will know, those , Ō-Rākau., Alongside its national importance, there are many whānau, hapū, and iwi for whom this site carries a very deep personal significance, because they descend from the traditional owners of the land or from those that took part in defending Ō-Rākau. I know some of those descendants who are not here today—like Uncle Harold, Uncle Denny, and others—many of them have passed on and they are represented here today by many of you, all of you, actually, who are represented here today and the many descendants throughout Aotearoa and indeed throughout the world, including, might I add, , Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill
I present a legislative statement on the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I move, That the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
The bill continues to give effect to the coalition Government’s commitments to restore law and order and to ensure appropriate consequences for offenders. In recent years, we’ve seen the use of imprisonment go down despite more serious offending coming before the courts. For example, the imprisonment rate for burglary, which has a maximum penalty of 10 years, reduced from 50 percent in 2016-17 to 39 percent in 2022-23. The imprisonment rate for robbery, which has a 14-year maximum penalty, dropped from 74 percent to 58 percent in 2023.
We are aware of the public’s frustration that, all too often, penalties do not reflect the seriousness of the offending and the harm inflicted upon the victim of that crime and their communities. Submitters to the Justice Committee have expressed their concern about the risk of violent, aggravated robberies and ram raids that retail workers face daily. These crimes are just as traumatic whether the victim is working in a small store or a large retail sector business. We’ve heard victims’ frustrations with short prison sentences, or no prison sentences at all, for serious offences that leave their victims with irreparable damage. Submitters were also frustrated with offenders who received hefty sentence discounts based on their circumstances, freeing them to quickly reoffend.
The bill strengthens consequences for offenders by limiting sentence reductions for personal mitigating factors to 40 percent, establishing a sliding scale of sentence reductions for guilty pleas, preventing repeat sentence reductions for youth and remorse, and encouraging cumulative sentencing for offences committed while on bail, custody, or parole.
The bill also adds new aggravating factors to denounce certain kinds of offending. The new aggravating factors are if an offender is convicted as a party to an offence committed by a child or a young person, that the offender live streamed or posted their offending online, that the victim was a public transport worker or passenger service worker, and if the victim was working alone or in a business that is joined or located to the victim’s home. We’re thinking in the context of people who own dairies and live upstairs and suffer violent attacks in the middle of the night, which have a horrendous impact on the wider family, not just the person involved.
Last, but by no means least, the bill puts victims at the heart of the justice system by strengthening the requirement for the courts to consider any information provided to them about the victim’s interests.
The bill has been reported back to the House from the Justice Committee. I want to thank the committee for their efforts. As is often the case in many submissions, it only further instilled why these changes were important.
The Louise Nicholas Trust—I want to just mention the campaigner for the rights of women who have been victims of sexual violence—told the committee that a 40 percent cap on sentence discounts would address the perception of leniency in our justice system, which can be distressing for survivors and can act as a disincentive to reporting. One other submitter spoke of the repeated use of discounts for youth and those who show remorse, something this bill will stop. They said, “You’re not remorseful if you carry on committing crimes and victimising more innocent people. People do make mistakes for which they are remorseful, but this should be a factor in sentencing. But many offenders have dozens of convictions, yet still argue that they are remorseful.”
The Justice Committee has made recommendations to clarify and refine the bill. I welcome their recommendations, which will assist the wider courts in understanding this. Let me come to the question of the 40 percent discount maximum cap. The Government’s long been concerned about offenders receiving heavily reduced sentences for personal mitigating factors. Accumulation of mitigation factors such as remorse and previous good character can result in significant discounts and the bill caps it at 40 percent. The committee recommends the bill make clear which factors are included in the cap through a new definition of personal mitigating factors that the cap applies to. Factors subject to the cap will include the age of offender, expressions of remorse, evidence of previous good character, and any guilty plea. The committee has recommended the bill specify that mitigating factors are not prescribed in the Act, and those that the court considers are personal to the offender are also included in the cap.
In some cases, an offender may provide substantial assistance to the authorities and to maintain the law. The courts may recognise assistance with a sentence reduction. Assisting the authorities has clear system and societal benefits, such as the quicker resolution of cases and intercepting crimes. Submitters have rightly pointed out that the cap should not disincentivise offenders from assisting the authorities. It’s not the intention of the policy to discourage such practices. The committee recommends that the bill specifically excluded from the cap reductions for assistance to authorities.
From the outset, the Government’s also made it clear that victims are central to these reforms and if any offender that can remedy some of the harm they have caused to the victim by making an offer to amend, such as payments or service, the courts can recognise the offender’s genuine and appropriate offer of amends or other measures under section 10 of the Sentencing Act with a sentencing reduction. These actions should be encouraged because of the direct benefit to the victims of the crime. As such, the committee recommends excluding section 10 matters, including offers to make amends from the cap, and we’re accepting that.
The bill clamps down on repeated use of discounts for youth and remorse of offending. Submitters have told us that remorse is meaningless, even if it is genuine, unless the remorse is followed by a changed behaviour. The new provision is intended to apply to offending that takes place after the commencement of the bill, and the limit on discounts will only apply to offending committed after the sentencing where the offender received the initial discount for youth or remorse. The committee recommended that we make that wording clear.
The bill, as reported back, also contains changes to address the consequences if the court omits to comply with the duties of the court to inform the offender of the consequences of receiving a youth or remorse discount and to record the discount in the court’s permanent record. If the court doesn’t inform the offender or record the discount, this should not invalidate the sentence or be grounds to appeal the sentence. These types of appeals would clog up the court system, and the committee also recommends making it clear that even when these duties aren’t complied with, the rules limiting repeat discounts should still apply.
The committee also considered whether the specific appeal provisions were needed if an earlier sentence that included a sentence discount for youthful remorse was overturned, and I’m satisfied that the standard appeal process is appropriate.
Continuing our commitment to fostering personal responsibility in the offender, the bill includes an aggravating factor where the offender was convicted as a party to an offence committed by a child or a young person. For the avoidance of doubt, the committee recommends that the bill clarify that this aggravating factor is intended to cover situations when an adult offender commits the offence and a child or young person is a party to the adult’s offending.
This Government wants a more efficient justice system. That means reducing unnecessary court hearings. The bill allows a person to be arrested without warrant if their home detention address becomes unavailable, no suitable alternative address can be approved, the court is closed, and there is a risk to public safety. The bill provides for the offender to be arrested without warrant in these circumstances and brought before the court as soon as possible. The committee recommends that the bill clarify that if an offender is arrested but an appropriate address is subsequently found, they can be released immediately without appearing in court. Again, this is about trying to speed up the processes of the court.
The bill’s got a three-month commencement period before the reforms come into force, to allow everyone to prepare for the changes. The changes in the bill will only apply to offending committed after commencement.
The bill builds on the Government’s ongoing effort to restore law and order, and we started off with passing legislation to tackle gangs and to reinstate the three-strikes regime. New Zealanders do deserve to feel safe in their community, and we are a Government that is committed to restoring real consequences for crime. This piece of legislation, which restricts the ability of judges to bring about massive discounts to sentencing, is designed to strengthen those real consequences for crime. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.
The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Labour Party didn’t support this bill at first reading, and having gone through the select committee process and hearing from submitters and having the opportunity to ask questions, we remain resolute in the fact that this isn’t a good bill and we certainly won’t be supporting it.
The crux of the matter is that the legislation reduces, as has been said, the range of sentences that a judge may impose on an offender and is absolutely intended—[Interruption]
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I can’t hear the speaker at the moment, please. Interjections are fine, but not arguments across the House.
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: —that’s all right—specifically to simply reduce the discretion of judges in imposing sentences. Fundamental to the sentencing process is the fact that in every situation, the circumstance of the victim—which is important—the circumstance of the offender, and the offending are unique. The task of the judge is to impose a sentence which is appropriate and takes into consideration all of those circumstances.
Because this legislation, we think, is a departure from that, it will make it harder for judges to actually achieve the objective of the Sentencing Act. And we’re not alone. The reduction of judicial discretion was a key concern for many of the submitters, including the New Zealand Law Society, the Defence Lawyers Association, the Māori Law Society, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, and the Law Association of New Zealand—to name just a sample. What this shows, we believe, on this side of the House, is that this is a Government not interested in reforms that are based on evidence or expert advice; they are simply signalling in a ham-fisted way that they’re trying to be tough on crime.
On top of that, the Ministry of Justice had made a number—you know, a number—of warnings about what these changes could mean in its regulatory impact statement, including that there was advice that these changes were likely to result in increased legal challenges about how the exceptions were being played out and the unintended consequences of disincentivising offenders from taking steps that will actually benefit victims. Let’s not forget here, the central component of all of the discourse around this should be about the rights of victims. If we’re doing something to sound tough on crime that actually disadvantages victims, then you know you’re on the wrong path.
Importantly, the planned changes will also make sentencing significantly more complex, which is also likely to result in delays to court. We’ve just heard the Minister in charge of the bill talk about efficiencies in the court process, which is completely juxtapositioned against a bill like this.
The regulatory impact statement was also very critical of the process adopted, which I think is also important, noting that there was insufficient time given to address wider issues that had been raised or to allow for detailed and peer-reviewed modelling of impacts. The ministry was not able to explore all of the other options that were available but was instructed only to look at the narrow options in this Government’s coalition agreement, meaning that, by definition, better options could have been out there, but we didn’t get to see those because this Government was determined to chug ahead with their coalition agreement direction.
The ministry was not able to consult broadly, meaning that there was no engagement and dialogue with Treaty partners; there was no strategic partners or stakeholders or practitioners included in the design of this. All of these constraints mean that the ministry couldn’t adequately test the implications or the unintended consequences, which is really important, and it could undermine the stated objectives of this legislative change. I think if the Government is going to go hell for leather in terms of signalling in a pretty vacuous and simple way their intentions, the least they could do is put a little bit of work into getting it right.
As we said, central to this reform is limiting the reductions in sentence that judges can grant, and one such measure in the provision of a reduction of a sentence is the youth and remorse, as was mentioned by the Minister, being a one-time reduction only. In respect to youth offending, we agree that a judge can probably give it less weight as a mitigating factor in subsequent offending, but the thing is, that is already the case under current law. We consider it to be quite irrational and at odds with good sentencing practice to require a judge to simply carte blanche disregard the factor when it still remains relevant to sentencing. A person doesn’t cease to be affected by their decision making simply because they’ve had it taken into account on one previous occasion. I think the Minister having to rely on the example of it happening dozens and dozens of times and resorting to hyperbole probably illustrates that point.
We also agree that a judge can be rightly sceptical of claims of remorse in respect to repeat offending, and this, again, is also the case with the current law, but we’re very mindful that the removal of remorse as a mitigating factor in a subsequent offending may have some perverse consequences. Namely, what we were concerned about was that there would be no incentive for offenders to make amends to their offending by way of things like genuine apologies or meeting with the victims, because there is no incentive for them to do so, and we know what a healing process that can be for people that choose to go down that path.
Having that removed isn’t keeping victims at the centre of the conversation, and this risks leading into worse, worse outcomes for the very people that the Government is talking about protecting. They talk a big talk—talk a big talk—about supporting victims and reducing the number of victims, but each time they’ve had an opportunity to do something practical and pragmatic about actually making that happen, they’ve instead chosen to take the option that is the most vacuous; which the least amount of work has gone into; and which we know through the regulatory impact statement, we know through the evidence of plenty of people who are experts in this area who do not agree, that it will have potentially the opposite effect.
In light of this, as the Minister said, the Justice Committee made some recommendations about tweaks, and we were pleased with that process, and we’d like to acknowledge all of the submitters that did participate in the select committee process. We recognise that particular circumstances such as the vulnerability of victims who are working alone should be taken into account as an aggravating factor, but it’s also the case that the law again already enables this. Adding this to a list of aggravating factors again increases that complexity.
There were lots of components to this bill that, on the surface, might sound like they’re doing something to reduce victims and to be tough on crime but actually could have the opposite effect, and there were plenty of warnings which the Government has chosen not to heed. The unintended consequences of disincentivising offenders from taking steps is something that’s already been discussed and the regulatory impact statement, we just believe, was full of information that it would have been good for the Government to take account of. The ministry was not, as I said, able to explore all of these options, so we find ourselves here today at the second reading being able to give scant airing to those really, really important pieces of information that the Government should have taken into account.
In short, this reform essentially is the Government just grasping in the dark. Central to this reform is limiting the reductions in sentencing that a judge can grant, and one such measure of the provision to make it somehow more palatable is that it cannot be manifestly unjust, which by definition therefore means that the Government is purposely and willing to introduce a bill and introduce a piece of legislation that by definition is unjust, but just not manifestly so, which we think is pretty backwards. The Labour Party will not be supporting this bill.
What we have here is another bill that is antiquated and weak, and it’s nothing more than this Government’s soundbite and fearmongering of an election promise with no evidence that is trying to address something as a patch, as a band-aid, of a much broader societal issue. This is not something that the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand will be supporting.
Let’s put it into context; let’s start with the select committee process. First of all, one of the things that we have heard consistently during the select committee process is that the limited nature of this bill means that it is hard to consult, but it’s also hard to expand or make any changes that will potentially be beneficial to our communities. We have heard from experts in the field such as the Defence Lawyers Association, Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa - the Māori Law Society, and Law Association of New Zealand, who have expressed serious concerns with this bill.
I think let’s just unpack some of these concerns. From a fundamental constitutional range perspective, we have talked in this House over and over again about the importance of the principle of comity and of the importance of judicial independence, but what we have seen here is an overreach by the executive, and the legislature is complacent in that, in the executive overreach of judicial discretion, which undermines our constitutional arrangements. Again, this is something we have heard from experts in the field. This cannot be understated in terms of that violation of the separation of powers.
That is just the start of the broader concerns. If we are looking at it from an international perspective, we have seen that a number of our obligations on the international agreement and covenant are under threat, such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child 1990, and also the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And what does that actually mean in context?
Firstly, what we have seen is that this is a bill that is going to continuously punish our young people, and particularly our young Māori. We do see that there is an overrepresentation in our criminal court and justice system, and also in our corrections system of youth, and I think particularly when we’re looking at experts in the international and child forensic psychology, which shows that part of the brain in governing risk-taking behaviour, impulse control, and the ability to evaluate consequences continue to evolve until a person’s mid-20s, which is exacerbated by the experience of trauma, abuse, poor mental health, and social disadvantage. Yet this bill continues to punch down on our Māori youth.
I think one of the most concerning elements of this is that during the select committee process we only got clarification during the select committee after we heard from the submitters that this bill, and the lack of recognition of the youth mitigating factor in certain circumstances, is applicable to current sentences. That is not only not giving submitters the chance to submit on that; it also means that the Attorney-General, in their consistency on the report against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA), could not have evaluated this. It’s invisible when it comes to the violation of section 26 of BORA. It also means that any of this particular risk does not manifest, and I think this is something that we really need to investigate and dig further into during the committee of the whole House stage, in terms of this BORA violation.
On another element of this, we are also going to need to be addressing Te Tiriti concern when it comes to something like this. We have heard over and over again. In fact, we have just heard, as part of Te Pire mō Ō Rākau, Te Pae o Maumahara / Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill, that governing parties like to do this feel-good thing—like, “We are doing everything we can”. Yet we see through this bill, through the Gangs Act, through the reintroduction of the three-strikes legislation, that the only housing policy that this Government has for Māori is in the form of prison beds. That is what is going to happen when we are consistently using bills like this to say that we are there for victims, when in fact we are there to punish and discriminate against specific communities and specific parts of our population.
There are broader concerns with this bill that I would like to address as well. Let’s talk about victims. The Minister would love to talk about victims, but victims actually don’t feature all that prominently in this bill. The key area that the victim features in this bill is in clause 5, which is a rewording of clause 8 of the Sentencing Act. It is not anything new; it is something that is already currently in the legislation. It is simply a soundbite. It is virtue signalling that this bill is there for victims; it is not.
One of the things we have heard from submitters, particularly when we’re looking at community law—there were a number of concerns that were raised—is the fact that there is lack of clarity between what is considered victims’ needs and victims’ interests. There is a lack of consideration and also a concern around, potentially as a response to the offending, the vengeful and the psychological impact this will have from a victim’s perspective. But, most importantly, here is the crux of the issue. The report and the departmental report itself says that “The scope of the bill is limited in giving greater prominence to victims”. That is what is in the official report when we are looking at this bill. If you are really there for the victims, that phrase should never have occurred, but it does.
Therefore, what is about victims in here? I will admit that it was really important to hear from people who have been affected by crime, as part of the select committee process, and I think the select committee has improved or has made clarifications on certain elements of that, but, let us be clear, this bill is not about victims. It is about punishing people further; it is not about addressing the causes and the triggers of crime.
Another thing I think that is also of concern that should also be mentioned in this context is the concern that whoever has the money and pays can also get away with a higher proportion of discount. One of the things that is central to this bill is this so-called 40 percent cap. One of the things about this 40 percent cap, and this is something that is expressed in section 7 of this bill, is the fact that in the introduction—in the newly rewritten section 9F under section 7 of this bill—it mentions that section 10 of the Sentencing Act is not factored into this limitation around a 40 percent cap, particularly when it comes to the offer of making amends.
One of the things that we questioned during the select committee stage is if someone is in a position and has the privilege of making amends financially, does that mean that those people will be able to get greater than 40 percent discount and go beyond that 40 percent cap? That was something that was also not clarified as part of the select committee stage. Again, during the committee of the whole House stage, we would like to really ask the Minister, and if the Minister is happy to kind of prepare this ahead of time, has there been any work that’s been done on how many—how would this disproportionately benefit or disproportionately disadvantage people who could not make those kinds of financial amends under section 10 of the Sentencing Act?
To prevent crime, inequality must be addressed with the urgency that it requires. Governments should prioritise livable income, stable housing, and accessible education, healthcare, and addiction treatment. Longer prison sentences do not work and it’s a bottom-of-the-cliff approach to a much bigger solution that needs greater investment. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of ACT on the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill. We have heard all kinds of claptrap from across the House tonight. New Zealanders saw an abhorrent situation in our country, where crime was rising; it was all over the show. We all saw it. To keep your head in the sand and pretend like it wasn’t happening is just outrageous. That is why the good people of this country saw fit to unceremoniously turf out the last lot.
To have a victim, you have to have a perpetrator, and what we found was that cuddles for criminals was not ending the amount of perpetrators we had; what we got were more victims. I, along with my ACT colleagues and colleagues across this coalition, have been to the scenes of ram raids. We have seen what has eventuated 12 months later for families who have had their providers victimised in assaults on retail crime. That is why this Government has taken the steps that we have in this bill to put victims back not just at the centre but even in the picture of what is going on with our criminal justice system.
Long-term damage to families has been a shocker, and that, as I say, is why, in the ACT-National coalition, we put in things like an aggravating factor can be an attack on a sole trader—someone who’s operating in their business, someone who lives above their business, someone who’s working alone. These things need to be protected, and given the amount of victimisation that someone who is working late in a place that’s connected to their home can experience, it has just got to stop. We’ve got the capping of sentences, and we heard the 40 percent; well, I can remember hearing someone say to me that some of the people who had victimised them were getting bigger discounts than they could get at Briscoes! I think, when that sort of comment is happening in the country, that just shows the laughable aspect that had happened under the reign of the last lot.
This Government is increasing police numbers—500 more by the end of 2025. We are also introducing an aggravating factor, in this bill, of an attack on public transport service workers being another aggravating factor, because, even as we continue to move this country towards a place where order is returning to our streets, still people see fit to do things like attack good, honest, hard-working, public transport sector workers as they go about their daily business. This, as I say, is another step that this Government is taking on behalf of the commitments that we made to the people who elected us and saw fit to create this Government.
We are getting in there and we’re sorting out gangs. We should not have seen the rise that we did in gang numbers. People who decide that they’re choosing a life of crime associated with a gang do it for many reasons, but it cannot be overlooked how much it felt like gangs were getting a walk-around in this country, without having the strong arm of the law come down on them. That is what this Government is trying to do. We want New Zealanders to be able to feel safe in their country, so they can see somewhere not just to invest their capital in their businesses and see fit to buy and do things in the economy that provide for others but also invest their life. So many New Zealanders have taken a look at this country over the last five years and said, “I can’t deal with that direction.”, and so they have gone and packed up and gone overseas.
This Government is doing its damnedest to make sure that New Zealanders can see a future in this country, and that New Zealanders who have taken their skills overseas can come back bloody promptly—sorry, I’m not allowed to say that, am I? Apologies, Madam Speaker, for that word—come back extremely promptly, because if we don’t—
Grant McCallum: Just say it.
CAMERON LUXTON: Just say it, he reckons. Well, that’s how fired up I am on this, because this Government is delivering on what all three coalition parties promised to do.
What I think is that we need to make a country where people see fit to raise their children, to let them walk down the road without fearing. It’s not that kids were being attacked on the road; it’s that, when you have a feeling in a country where crime is pervasive, when the Papamoa Plaza is being ram-raided and people see fit to post it on social media—another thing that this bill is dealing with, an aggravating factor of having social media posts be a part of it—when people see that in their communities, like I saw in my community, I think that just leads to a mistrust in the entire society, and this Government is returning trust to this country, to our society, and it’s going to get our country back where we should be. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill. I would like to pause first to reflect on restoring law and order. It is a priority. Restoring law and order requires enforcement, it requires detection, it requires better legislation, but also it requires a return of faith in the justice system itself. We’ve heard in this House just recently about the disillusionment that exists among victims around even bothering to go towards the court system because of the weak sentencing. Because of the fact that all the trauma and challenges they go through, they end up with laughable sentences to the offender where they feel no safer, they feel not protected, they feel not validated, and they, most importantly, feel unsafe.
This is about returning a level of expectation that this Parliament rightly should have in the justice system to say: “Enough is enough.” We owe it to victims to send a clear message that continually discounting sentences is unacceptable. In the narrative in this House today, it is astounding that we have missed the point that these are the sentences; these are at the point a person has been found guilty by a jury of their peers of committing the offence. This isn’t imposing a sentence before you’ve gone through the justice system; this is restoring faith in the justice system once you’ve gone through this arduous process. You have been convicted, you have been found guilty, and now we’re saying that this society deserves some level of assurance that these crimes will be taken seriously.
When you have gone through the court system, when you have gone through the jury system, when you have sat next to a victim and gone through this incredibly arduous process, through adjournment, through delays, through all of these challenges and still fought the system, and when you finally get your conviction and you think, “I’ve done my duty. I have found someone accountable.”, and when the system kicks you in the teeth and says, “Well, we’ll discount for this and we’ll discount for that—and, oh, he has said he’s sorry eventually after the 15th time.”—this is not acceptable. This is when we talk about how we will stand up for our victims and we will make sure that there is a clear message that this is about accountability.
Yes, we have said repeatedly in this Government: “We will deal with the social housing issues.”, and we are dealing with education and we are dealing with the drivers that force people into bad circumstances. We’re not getting rid of those initiatives; we are actually doubling down. We are delivering more than the previous Government was able to deliver, because we’re serious and because the grown-ups are in the room. But this part here relates to the fact that you have committed a crime and you will be held accountable. This is about restoring faith so that our victims don’t feel “Why bother?” We see it too much: “Why should I bother because he will be back out on the street before I have even finished paying all the losses that I have for the crime that’s been committed against me?”
This is why we’re taking it seriously. I would have to take a couple of points about what was said across the House. This idea that we are punching down on our rangatahi, we are punching down on our youth—no. We are protecting them. We are protecting them from being manipulated by serious criminals who are using our young people to be the face of their crimes. They are using our young people. They are victimising our young people and we’re going to say, “You’re party to it. We will take it seriously. We will not allow you to punch down on our rangatahi.” We will stand up for them and we will deliver accountability in our sentencing.
We have, for too long, allowed the system to erode. We’ve allowed the cuddling of our criminals. We have allowed this to occur because our victims lost their voice. Our victims lost their ability to be heard because we heard all the excuses about what was driving the criminal. Now we are going to talk about the victim being first. We’re going to talk about the fact that our victims deserve better. They deserve to know that if you report a crime—and remembering we are talking about these serious criminal offenders who are destroying people’s lives. We now have to advocate for a degree of personal responsibility. You will be informed, you will be warned, you will be told of the consequences of repeated offending. You will be told—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Speaker won’t be.
Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Sorry, I’m meaning the offenders. The person responsible will be told that they are going to be held accountable. If they continue down this pathway, you have an opportunity to change your trajectory, but if you do not change your trajectory, the system will ensure that our victims will be protected.
This is about real consequences. This is about accepting that, in amongst all of these challenging circumstances that exist, there’s a person at the centre of it. There is a person who has had their lives irreversibly damaged and someone has to be made to account for that. That is why this bill is important. That is why it’s sending a clear message from this Government that these are the expectations in our justice system that we want to see more. Most importantly, we want to see our victims have faith in the justice system that’s supposed to protect them. For that reason, New Zealand First commends this bill to the House.
Tēnā koe, otirā tēnā tātau. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mō te iwi Māori, ā, kōkiritia e te Pāti Māori i roto i tēnei Whare mō te anga o te tahua, te tāhuhu ture o te Whare Pāremata. Kua oti i a te Kāwanatanga te kotahi tau kia āta waihanga mai i ngā ture, ā, me te whai i āna i whakarautaki ai hei whai māna. Ā, ka mutu, i roto i te tau kua taha ake nei, i riro i a au tētahi wā te āta patapatai ki ngā kaihautū o ngā tahua o te tāhuhu ture, arā ko Corrections, ana hoki ko te Police, tae atu ki te whare whānui o te ture. Ā, me tā rātau whaiwhai atu i te whakaheketanga iho o Ngāi Māori e pākinotia, ā, e whakamaua tonutia i roto i ngā kawenga o te tāhuhu ture. Ana, ko tāku ki a rātau, ngā hautū o ērā whare e toru, pēhea rā tō koutou manaaki i te iwi Māori, i te mea kei te mōhio rātau tokotoru ngā taumahatanga i runga i te iwi Māori, kāore e tika ana, kāore e taurite ana, nō reira koinā tonu ko te ito o te pātai matua, hāngai pū ana ki tēnei o ngā ture. Ā, ko tā rātau whakahoki kōrero mai ki a au, e kore e taea e rātau tokotoru, tēnā, tēnā, tēnā, i kōrero mai ki a au e kore e taea e au, e kore e taea e au, e kore e taea e au. Ahakoa kei ō rātau rautaki ēnei mea e takoto ana.
Nō reira, ki roto i te kotahi tau kua kite atu i ngā ture e haere mai ana i te Kāwanatanga, ā, tērā tōna āhuatanga ko te patu i ngā kēngi tētahi, tērā anō ahakoa kua turaki ināianei ko te ram raids bill tētahi, anei tētahi ko te strengthening sentencing, arā tētahi, arā noa atu ngā ture kua taetae ki mua ki te komiti whiriwhiri o justice. Ko te utu o ērā ture katoa, e ai ki ngā mātanga ture o te motu, ka piki ake te tokomaha o te iwi Māori e mau nei i roto i ngā kawenga o te tāhuhu o te ture. Piki ake! Āhea te Kāwanatanga whakaaro nui nei ki te iwi Māori me tana mōhio ko te tāhuhu o te ture he kupenga ka haoa nuitia te iwi Māori. Kua oti kē i ngā whare o te tāhuhu o te ture ēnei āhuatanga te rangahau. Kei te mōhio kē rātau, kāore e tika te taurite o te pānga o te ture ki te Māori, ki te pānga o te ture ki ētahi atu. Kei te mōhio kē. Nō reira, inā tāku pātai ki te Minita, mā hea ia whakatau tika, whakatau toka ai i ngā tatauranga hei whai mā ngā kaihautū o tēnā whare, o tēnā whare, o tēnā whare o te tāhuhu o te ture. Kāore ōna whakautu. Nō reira e tukua tonutia te iwi Māori ki te kūpenga o te ture kei reira whakamaua atu ai he mataika nō te pakanga, te pakanga e rū tonu nei, e haere tonu nei.
Nō reira mēnā e tika ana ngā kōrero o tēnei Whare mō te pire katahi anō ka whakamanahia me te manako nui, te ngākau nui o tēnei Whare ki tōna taha iwi Māori, mō te whakatika i ngā hē o mua, tōia mai tērā wairua ki ngā hē o te nāianei. Ā, ko ngā ture kua oti i te Kāwanatanga te whakarite i roto i te tau kotahi ko aua hē ka tōaitia haere ake nei ki te anamata. Koia te urupounamu e tukua atu ana ki ngā mokopuna o te āpōpō, tekau tau, rua tekau tau, hoki mai a Ngāi Māori ki konei me te wero i ngā whakataunga ture o tēnei Kāwanatanga i roto i tēnei tau, anei tētahi ko te Sentencing Reform nei. Nō reira, kāore mātau e paku whakaae, tautoko, aha atu rānei i tēnei pire. Otirā, e tautoko ana mātau i ngā mātanga rōia, ā, kāhui ture o te motu nā rātau anō tēnei pire i whakahē. Nō reira, tēnā tātau. Kei raro.
[I greet you and I greet us all. I stand to present the views of the Māori people, as advanced by Te Pāti Māori in this House, about the framework of this vote, for the justice system of this Parliament. The Government has spent one year designing legislation, pursuing its outcomes that it strategised. Within the year that has passed, I secured time to examine the leaders of the votes within the justice system, that is Corrections, Police, and the Ministry of Justice, and their collective pursuit to reduce the number of Māori people who are impacted and held within the machinery of the justice system. My question to them, the leaders of these three agencies, was: how do you care for Māori people? Because the three of them know the burden on Māori people that is not fair or equitable, hence that was the heart of my main question, with specific reference to this piece of legislation. Their response to me was, they are not able, each one, they said to me, I can’t do it, I can’t do it, I can’t do it, despite the fact that these commitments are set out in their strategies.
Thus, within one year we have seen the legislation being advanced by the Government, including one to beat gangs, another one that has now been discharged, being the ram raids bill, and this is another one, strengthening sentencing, and there are others which have come before the Justice Committee. The impact of all these laws, according to the legal experts of the country, is that the number of Māori incarcerated within the justice system will increase—increase! When will the Government have consideration for Māori people, knowing that the justice system is a net that entraps Māori people. The departments within the justice system have already researched these phenomena. They already know: the impact of the law on Māori is not the same as the impact of the law on other people. They already know. Hence my question to the Minister: how will he set fair and meaningful targets for the leaders of each department within the justice system? He had no reply. So, Māori people continue to be sent into the net of the law there to remain victims in the ongoing battle.
Therefore, if the commentary of this House about the bill that has just been enacted is correct, about the aspirations and goodwill of this House towards Māori people, in terms of addressing historic grievances, draw forth that spirit to encompass the grievances of the present day—that is, the laws that have been enacted by the Government in the year gone by will reiterate those grievances into the future. This is the legacy that will be bequeathed to future generations. In 10 years, 20 years, Māori will come back here to challenge the legislative decisions of this Government over the last year, including this sentencing reform. Therefore, we do not agree, support, or do anything else to this bill. However, we do support the legal experts and law associations who have rejected this bill. Thus, greetings to us all. I sit.]
Kahurangi Carter.
Ko Huhana Lyndon tēnei. [I am Huhana Lyndon.]
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Oh, I did it again. I’m so sorry.
HŪHANA LYNDON: That’s all right. Kia ora tātou. E te Pīka, e mihi atu ana ki a tātou i tēnei ahiahipō, me te taimaha o tēnei kaupapa kua tau mai ki roto i tō tātou Whare Pāremata i muri atu i te pānuitanga o tēnā pire e pā ana ki te whenua riri nei, o Ōrākau.
Nō reira, ka tū ahau hei waha kōrero, hei waha tautoko i taku hoa ki roto i te Rōpū Kākāriki.
Tēnei taimahatanga nā te mea ko te iwi Māori, ko te iwi Māori e hamahama ana i te Kāwanatanga, ko te iwi Māori e hamahama ana i te Pirihimana ki runga i ngā rori, ki roto i ngā tāone, ki roto i ngā rohe.
Nō reira ka waha kōrero ahau e pā ana ki ēnei āwangawanga. E tautoko ana au i ngā kōrero a taku hoa, a taku tūngāne, a Tākuta, me taku mihi i te mea ko te Māori e taka mai ana ki roto i te hē.
[Madam Speaker, I greet us all this evening and acknowledge the difficulty of this topic that has landed in our Parliament House following the reading of that bill regarding the battleground Ōrākau.
And so, I stand as a spokesperson, as a support person for my colleague within the Green Party.
This is difficult because it is the Māori people, it is the Māori people that are hammering the Government, it is the Māori people that are hammering the Police on the roads, in the urban centres, and in the regions.
And so I will speak about these concerns. I support the statements made by my colleague, my brother, Tākuta, and I make acknowledgement because it is the Māori who are falling into trouble.]
This bill is about mass incarceration. I’ve spoken in this Whare before about MMP meaning “More Māori in Prison”, and that’s what this bill is going to do to us. We are going to see double the prison population. You know, the mega-prison that’s being built in Waikeria—nau mai e te iwi Māori, nau mai. That’s the solution of this Government to the housing crisis for te iwi Māori—load up our prisons.
Prisons don’t work. Prisons don’t rehabilitate, prisons don’t provide a huarahi to prevent the reoffending of Māori—no, not at all. Māori are going to be the ones locked up, and that’s really clear. In fact, the officials gave the advice to the Justice Committee. They said there would be a doubling of the prison population. There will be additional people in prison, having committed only minor offences—and this is what the officials told our committee. That’s one of the problems. It’s that we’re only looking to lock people up; we’re not looking at the drivers of crime in the first place.
As iwi Māori know, we know it’s complex. We know that we have tamariki who are impacted by, yes, colonisation; by, yes, drugs and alcohol; and by, yes, mental health issues and addictions—by all of those things that see their parents in prison. Then they come out, and what? What are they coming out to?
We need to really look at how prisons don’t work, and, actually, all we’re doing is just appeasing one part of the population without thinking about those who have been impacted on both sides of the coin—and, largely, that is Māori. We cannot say that it’s not a Māori issue. This is a Māori issue, and more Māori in prison will be a result.
The rehabilitation success rates show for themselves that putting people into prison does not work: only 7 to 15 percent of those in prison—well, you know, where’s the success rate? I just can’t see it, and that’s, I guess, what my issue is with the bill. It doesn’t provide enough breadth for the judiciary to have flexibility, because it’s becoming more and more rigid in terms of the direction that our judges have to be able to make decisions.
We have to look at the background of the individual; we have to look at those things which have impacted upon them; and if we think about our youth who get into trouble—sometimes it’s a split-second decision, or something that was very impulsive—and kore e tino whai whakaaro ki te utu. [and they don’t really consider the price.] Then they’re in prison and then they’re in the cycle. Our people get into the cycle, and then what is the outcome? It’s reoffending.
If you look at the rates of people who do have a neurological or intellectual disability, fetal alcohol syndrome, mental health issues and addiction, and illiteracy, they’re all sitting in our prisons. When you lock them up, are you really preparing them to go back out into the world and be productive members of society? I argue no. Because, actually, you’re wanting to load up the prison system with more of our people, and you’re not looking at the drivers of crime being poverty, the drivers of crime being the education system, and the drivers of crime being the fact that they don’t have a safe roof over their heads or that they even have a legal vehicle to drive on the roads. Yeah, they might get in trouble, and then—boom! “Oh, three strikes and you’re out. Oh, yep, lock them up.”—lock them up—and it’s not our people here, in this House; it’s actually the people in the kāinga.
When I went to Whakatāne on the weekend and I was speaking to people in Ōpōtiki, the community was really clear about the regional issues. It is about jobs and it is about seeking for something positive for the future, and that doesn’t come at the end of being put in prison when you stuff up, because “three strikes and you’re out”.
What is it—cuddles for criminals? Come on, we’re not asking for cuddles for criminals; we’re asking for a system that does not seek to lock our people up in the first place, and we look to rehabilitate for real. Kia ora.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The difference between the Government and the Opposition on this piece of legislation, the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, could not be starker. It could not be starker. On this side, we are relentlessly focused on restoring law and order and putting victims at the heart of our justice system; on that side, they are soft on crime and they do not support this legislation. The only thing they want to do is reduce the prison population.
Credit to the previous Government; it was the only thing they were good at. The only target they could actually achieve was to reduce the prison population, but what did it do? It drove up violent crime and increased the number of victims in New Zealand. What a shameful day to see members opposite voting against legislation which will protect New Zealanders—which will protect Kiwis in this country, who want to feel safe in their communities. Let’s be very, very clear—the contrast is crystal clear: tough on crime on this side; soft on crime on that side. You’ve made it clear to the New Zealand public. They know who they will be voting for in 2026.
One of the key points I want to make crystal clear—and I know other members will talk about it in the legislation, too—is that you can only be remorseful once. It’s shameful that people can continue to receive discounts based on remorse when they’ve already had it previously. That ends now. Remorse can only be given as a discount once, through this legislation, and it is a good thing. We’ve made it clear: there will be real consequences for crime. We are clamping down on lenient sentence discounts, particularly for youth and for remorse. Simply saying sorry does not cut it any more.
We are also introducing several aggravating factors, and the last major change is around cumulative sentencing. We’ve seen a growing rise of concurrent sentences, as well. That will be changing, and that’s why this legislation will set clear expectations that offenders should be held to account for the crimes they commit, to ensure that we can protect the people of New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I thought we would have nearly got 10 minutes out of the Government if they had all the answers to fixing law and order! That one made about 2½.
The problem we’ve got here is that we want to keep our communities safe now but we also want to break the cycle of crime. This Government quite clearly has no plan to break the cycle of crime. The crux of the matter is that the legislation reduces the range of sentences that a judge may impose on an offender and is intended to reduce the discretion of a judge in imposing a sentence.
Fundamental to the sentencing process is the fact that every situation—the circumstances of the victim, the offender, the offending—is different, and the job of the judge is to impose a sentence which is appropriate to all of those circumstances. But those members over there know better! They think they can map out the future for every single human and how it’s going to work, and they think they know better than judges. That’s why they’ve introduced legislation that overrules the discretion of the judiciary in New Zealand.
This legislation, the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, is a departure from that and will make it harder for judges to achieve the objectives under the Act. That’s exactly what we heard in the select committee. We heard that from the New Zealand Law Society. We heard that from the Defence Lawyers Association. We heard it from the Māori Law Society. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists said the same thing. The New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services said that as well. The Law Association of New Zealand also said that.
What it shows is that this Government is simply uninterested in evidence. They don’t want reforms based on expert evidence or actual proof of what works, and the one measure they’ve done in the law and order space already, which is boot camps, is another example: a blatant failure of trying to get on top of youth crime, but they won’t even talk about or admit to where it’s failing. This is the second cab off the rank in terms of how we fix making New Zealanders feel safer and breaking the cycle of crime.
On top of that, the Ministry of Justice made a number of warnings about these changes, in their own regulatory impact statement, but, again, that would be evidence and proof, and we’re not interested in that if you’re the Government! The unintended consequence is, they stated in the regulatory impact statement—which is worth a read if you ever took the time to do that—of disincentivising offenders from taking steps that will benefit victims.
So, after we’ve heard speech after speech on how this bill is victim-centric, the regulatory impact statement from the Ministry of Justice states that it will have detrimental impacts on victims and outcomes for victims. This Government—
Hon Member: How?
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Read the regulatory impact statement. One of the reasons that concerns me about this, particularly for victims, is we’ve heard it’s victim-centric but there is no additional support for victims, for their ability to have a voice in this justice system, for their support through the judicial process, or even for counselling or additional services that victims are crying out for. We put huge extra support in for victims going through the system, and all that the Government thinks it’s going to do for victims is simply remove the discretion of judges, and somehow that’s victim-centric. Well, I’m not buying it.
The other point I would like to get to, before wrapping up, is one of the areas that they’re not focusing on, in terms of what’s causing the cycle of crime to repeat. We’ve seen this with the huge increase in methamphetamine in New Zealand. How is restricting the choices or the ability of a judge to make a decision impacting on the fact that New Zealanders are seeing a 129 percent increase in methamphetamine? If you’re going to get tough on crime and tough on organised crime, where is this Government’s plan to reduce the increasing rate of methamphetamine and cocaine that’s finding its way into New Zealand? That is a real concern—that the plan is boot camps, and restricting judges’ ability to make sentences is the plan to stop the cycle of crime. I can’t see how that’s going to work.
The amendments also include provisions that a judge can depart from the rules in the case of manifestly unjust. Implicit in this is a recognition that the application of these new sentencing standards will lead to injustice in varying degrees. Manifestly unjust is a high threshold. It’s more than just an unfair or inappropriate sentence; it must be a sentence that is so clearly wrong that no reasonable person would consider it appropriate.
In short, we know this will incarcerate more Māori, this doesn’t seem to show how it’s even going to help victims, but it gets to tick a box on your sheet of how you’ve tried to deliver restoring law and order. I think it’s a sad failure and an indictment on this Government’s inability to understand a problem and come out with real solutions.
I want to speak to victims out there this evening. If they’re watching and listening to this this evening, I want them to know that we have their back, that this Government is here to ensure that victims are at the centre of our justice system. I heard the member opposite earlier, Dr Tracey McLellan, say that this would make sentencing more complex. Well, let me make it simple for that member and for everyone watching this this evening, wanting to see the Government deliver on its promise of restoring law and order in this country.
Number one: victims’ interests are important. That’s the first thing this bill will deliver.
Secondly, there will be new aggregating factors, particularly for crimes against public transport passenger services. You know, if you are a worker in passenger services right now, as a side note, we have your back—not the so-called party for the workers, but this Government has your backs. If you’re working in a sole charge position or you’re working where your home and business is connected, this Government has your back.
Number three: we’re limiting reductions in sentences to 40 percent.
Number four: we’re implementing a sliding scale, setting out a maximum sentence for guilty pleas that decreases—pretty simple; pretty logical—in terms of reductions the further into the sentence that the criminal—because that’s what they are—
Rima Nakhle: Are we allowed to say that?
CARL BATES: —or defendant, at that stage, but, you know, ultimately in this context they are a criminal—pleads guilty.
Number five: it prevents the repeat use of sentence reductions for youth and remorse. My colleague Tom Rutherford made that very clear earlier and explained that point. You know, you just can’t keep saying sorry.
And number six: it encourages the use of cumulative sentences for offences while on bail, in custody, or on parole.
Members opposite need to understand that this is pretty simple and it’s what New Zealand wants. I commend it to the House.
This is a bill that’s really hard to hear the Government talk about, because they are extremely pompous in the way they’re talking about it and they’re extremely out of touch. Everybody in this House cares about victims, and a melodramatic appeal to them by somebody who barely understands what it is to be one is actually really offensive.
When we look at issues like this, we have a duty to look at them in the reality that they are, which is a complex one. It is complex because our victims actually tend to also be our perpetrators, because there are mental health issues, because there are issues of youth, because we had a long time in this country where we let people go into State care, we kicked them out of the system at 16, and they have alcohol issues and we’ve had methamphetamine.
All these reasons mean that we end up with a complex situation before a judge. And what do we do? We make sure that we look good by taking away their discretion to do their job well. That’s what we are doing today in this court. We are making ourselves look good and doing very little to address the problem.
Now, I have got an area in my electorate where I am worried about retail crime. I am worried about the safety of workers. [Interruption] I would not like one of the members of—please listen to me—the Government to tell me I do not care about those workers, because that’s what I did with my life: I spent 25 years caring about those workers and looking after them.
Carl Bates: You got paid by them!
HELEN WHITE: And I’m looking at a member who has, in fact, not necessarily done that, who is telling me he’s looking after victims. Those people are victims, and we need to make sure that our system actually addresses those issues in my community that are there right now, that are still there despite the promises of Mark Mitchell—that are still there. When you move police into the city, you take them away from other areas. When you don’t fund your rehabilitation centres, you have more drug crime on the street.
These are all important things that come from our taxes, which we need to pay if we’re going to have a society that functions, but, no, what we’re going to do is take the discretion away from our judges to deal with situations which are hard—they are hard. Why would we have an issue like youth taken into account? We have youth taken into account—and I’m sure there were submissions on this—because, actually, children’s brains are plastic. They are changing. Men don’t actually have a fully set brain until their mid-20s. They are still developing their brain. If they are actually coming on a second offence and they are remorseful, it may well actually make more sense as they reach maturity.
There are two of these things I have dealt with. I have dealt with youth and I have dealt with remorse in a very small way. I have given it more thought and attention than was allowed to the people giving the advice to this committee, who could not bring the evidence before the committee. What did the committee do? It added a little thing at the end of all of this that said, “If it’s manifestly unjust, we’ll change our mind.” Manifestly unjust? What about if it’s just unjust? What about if it’s really hurting people?
We pay judges a lot of money after they’ve spent their entire life doing this work, and often they really care. They’ve worked with families. They’ve seen families in cyclical violence. They have been there through thick and thin, and we pay them a lot of money because we respect them. What have we done today? What are we going to do? We’re going to take away the discretion from the people who are in that position.
Do you know what I call that? I call it arrogance. I call it arrogance and I call it pontificating, and I call it actually something less than the duty we have in here, because we are in a trusted position here. We should be putting up good and robust law that doesn’t have unintended consequences and doesn’t lead to things that are unjust, not just things that are manifestly unjust, because real people will become victims again if we allow laws like this to rule us because it happens to make us a little bit more popular when we’re down in the polls. Kia ora.
Madam Speaker, it really is—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I call Greg Fleming.
GREG FLEMING: Thank you, Madam Speaker. You can see my excitement. I was not anticipating to speak on this bill, but I’m delighted that I have the chance. I have actually spent the last 25 years of my career working on the front line. I was on the founding board of Rethinking Crime and Punishment in New Zealand and I, like my Government and like my party, are huge believers in the need to prioritise the restoration of people to society. We also believe that we must—and this is not compatible with our first priority—protect people from crime.
I had a, some would call it, Damascus road experience; I’m going to call it a Campbell Road experience. Not long after I became a candidate—this was the year before last—I was walking along the road in Campbell Road in my electorate of Maungakiekie when I came across a person that I had not seen for many years. She was clearly visibly shaken. It was because she had just come back from a counselling appointment. I inquired with her as to what had happened.
She went on to explain to me that earlier that week she’d come in from her back garden there on Campbell Road to be confronted with two masked gentlemen—interestingly, I call them gentlemen; I still want to believe absolutely their humanity and the point that we can restore them, but at this particular moment they weren’t particularly gentlemanly—in her kitchen. They threatened her, they made her lie on the ground. Thankfully, they did her no bodily harm, but they took her car, they went away, and by the time the police caught these two guys, they were in East Auckland repeating their home invasion on another two victims. When the police did finally apprehend them, they discovered both of them were wearing monitoring bracelets.
When you unpack their case, it is sadly the result of a very well-meaning but misguided sentencing system that wanted to believe that these guys were ready for release. They weren’t. They needed to spend some time inside our prison, going through our rehabilitation services, and that is what we as a Government are absolutely committed to seeing: more investment and better programmes in there to restore these people to the people that they should be and can be. That will happen when they are under those programmes. It’s not going to happen when they are wandering Campbell Road invading neighbours because they shouldn’t have been there in the first place. That is why I commend this bill to the House.
Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill, the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, which has been a debate that has focused on politicians talking about being tough on crime and not on being tough on the causes of crime.
It’s difficult to listen to, as the MP for Manurewa, where we have significant issues with youth offending in the area, where we have gang activity back on our main streets, and where we have young people who see a life in the gangs as a possibility. None of us wants that. None of us wants the kind of community that feels like people don’t have an alternative to crime and that only punishments are the way to get young people on a track to success, where our principals are dealing daily with a rise in violent crime and knife crime in our schools. That has never been a feature of our South Auckland schools, and it is something that is happening now.
We need real solutions for this, and it is sobering to think that we as elected representatives are presiding over a situation in New Zealand which is completely unacceptable and should never have been a part of growing up as a young person in our communities, but bills like this do not do the hard job of addressing the causes of crime in our communities. They do the job of signalling, and I agree that signalling to judges is sometimes required, but it is also really important to give judges the role that they do in our justice system, which is to assess the appropriate sentencing and the appropriate conditions in each case.
That is why Parliament doesn’t set compulsory sentences for every type of crime and every type of offending. There is a reason why this House is not the court that decides every sentence for every person in every case, and especially in those circumstances like the member who has just resumed his seat, Greg Fleming, has described. There is a need for harsh punishments for people who reoffend on parole or when they are in home detention, but those circumstances are always some of the most complex. These are people who have been engaged in rehabilitative systems and, as the member acknowledged, in a system that is trying to get them on a better path. For these harsh punishments that politicians like to talk about to actually have an effect, we need a justice system which is geared up and built around getting people on a better path and into something that is more useful for them to be engaged in.
None of the victims of violent crime that I have spoken with in my electorate, after really horrific events like jewellery store owners being bashed, like store owners who have been the target of ram raids, have spoken first about the need for sentencing reform. They’ve said that it is the role of their elected representatives to make sure that this kind of thing does not happen. These are people in our communities—the store owners, the jewellery shop owner—who know the people who are committing crimes against them. They will often know the kids’ names who come into the store and steal from them.
What they want for those young people is for them to be off the street and in work or, if it’s not work, in programmes that make sure that they’re not loitering around the shops and that they actually can get in front of the people that they have been committing the crimes against and apologise to them and figure out something that is better to be able to do. Those shop owners are also the biggest supporters of programmes like Clendon Pride’s Mangōpare, that operates out of the Clendon shops in my electorate of Manurewa, where they’re getting kids into something better and having them go and apologise and speak with the people who their crimes affect.
Those are useful solutions. They are solutions that people support, when it is community based and when it is well understood. There is a lot of goodwill for that kind of programme, and we need to be listening to the victims of violent crime, who do want something more from not only the Government but both major parties in power. Now, I can hear some heckling on the other side, and I would just say that these sorts of debates about sentencing are for—
Grant McCallum: We’re not heckling. Do you want heckling? Do you want some heckling? You sure?
ARENA WILLIAMS: I do want some action—I do, Grant McCallum. These sorts of debates call for some soberness and some dignity—
Grant McCallum: Don’t be serious! Don’t laugh!
ARENA WILLIAMS: —around sentencing and around how our justice system should operate, because—and I’m not laughing, Grant McCallum; it’s the National members who are doing so. We all know that there is political hay to be made out of looking tough in sentencing reform.
Rima Nakhle: There’s looking after the victims.
ARENA WILLIAMS: It is certainly not looking after the victims when the Minister of Justice’s own advice says that this is not something that will help victims, that victims will actually be negatively affected by these reforms. When the member Carl Bates said that he wants to talk directly to victims, he’s actually ignoring the fact that all of the research, all of best practice in our lawmaking in this country and in other jurisdictions that have tried reforms like this, show that this kind of reform doesn’t have a positive outcome for victims, because it disincentivises people to come forward and to admit their offending and to begin a process where they can make good on the harm that they have done. This further pushes people in the system into a position where they are entrenched and where they cannot come to the table and actually admit their offending, which is exactly what those, say, shop owners actually want. They want to deal with this. They want to move past this. They want to see that there is a path for these young people that is an alternative.
Now, it’s been useful for us to contribute to this debate. This is not something the Labour Party supports. It is something that we want to see action on. It’s on this Government to see how this bears out, but if there is a negative impact on victims, then we should be back in this House repealing this law.
Members, this debate is interrupted for the dinner break. The House is suspended until 7.30. Thank you.
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Members, when we broke for the dinner break, we were up to the second reading of the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill. We were up to call No. 12, the National Party call.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in absolute, vehement, 100 percent support of the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill in its second reading, that our Government is progressing without shame throughout the House. The reason why I say “without shame” is because I sat here in absolute—I was—
Tom Rutherford: Disgust.
RIMA NAKHLE: Well, I was flabbergasted with what I was hearing from the other side of the House. It flabbergasted me because—I say this often—I truly believe people on the other side of the House are good people, decent people, but I can’t believe, sometimes, the world view that is shared with us. One of these world views is that this bill, what it does is it’s not about victims, as one of our Green members said—“This bill is not about victims”—he said—“it is about punishing people further.” Really? Does the speaker think that’s what it’s about? Absolutely we want to punish people further. There’s a reason why we want to punish people further, because my neighbours in Takanini were telling me over and over and over again that there seem to be no more consequences for violent crime, for all types of crime. I said to them, “We will bring back consequences when we get back in there.”, and this bill, the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, is one of the ways that we are bringing back consequences for crime, holding people accountable.
If I reflect on some of the submissions that were given during the submission stage, another point of horror and almost disgust for me was when I asked a solicitor that is the co-chair of the Defence Lawyers Association of New Zealand, “What do we say”—and she was speaking against the bill—“to an 11-year-old girl that was very violently sexually abused and the perpetrator was given home detention?”—home detention. Do you know what this person answered, Ms Elizabeth Hall? She said, “We say that the justice system is designed to look at the interests of all parties and that the harm that has been suffered to you”—the young girl—“is recognised.” Do you think the mother wants to know that the harm is recognised, or to have something done about it, or the perpetrator being given something more than home detention? He was given 75 percent discount because of this reason and this reason and this reason. It is shameful. It’s shameful what we’ve done to this young girl, this 11-year-old girl whose life is, effectively, ruined because of that perpetrator. He has home detention. It’s shameful and it’s disgusting, and that’s why I commend this bill to the House.
The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Justice Committee by majority be agreed to.
I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Overseas Investment (Build-to-rent and Similar Rental Developments) Amendment Bill.
I present a legislative statement on T
SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon TAMA POTAKA: I move, That the Te Pire mō Ō-Rākau, Te Pae o Maumahara/Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill be now read a third time.
E ua e te ua, e tāheke koe i runga rā
Ko au i raro nei, riringi ai
He ua kei aku kamo.
[Let the rain fall, you cascade above
While I am below, pouring out
Like rain from my eyes.]
E te hunga ngaro, koutou e moe mai rā ki tua o tinitini, ki tua o manomano. Ki a rātou katoa, Matua Harold mā, Matua Denny mā o te wā o te kaupeka o te marama, katoa atu rātou ngā tūpuna o te pō, haere oti atu rā.
Oti atu rā ki tō tātou Kiingi o te Kotahitanga, Kiingi Tuheitia Pōtatau Te Wherowhero VII. Ka mate tētēkura, ka ara mai tētēkura, tō tātou kuīni, koutou e whakakanohi nei i te kahukiwi a tūpuna mātua. Koutou Ngā Ahi e Toru, koutou ngā mātua, ngā ruahine, ngā ruanuku, ngā ruruhi, ngā koroheke, ngā rangatakapū me ngā rangatahi kua haramai i ngā kura kāreti o Waikato, nau mai, nau piki mai, nau kake mai, nau ora mai, nau kawe mai, nau whanaunga mai.
[To those who have been lost, you who sleep beyond the multitudes, beyond the innumerable. To all of them, Matua Harold, Matua Denny, and others who passed recently, this season, this month, all of them, the ancestors of the night, go and take your final rest.
Take your final rest with our King of Unity, King Tuheitia Pōtatau Te Wherowhero VII. As leaders pass on, new leadership arises, our Queen, you who represent the kiwi feather mantle of our ancestors and forebears. You, Ngā Ahi e Toru, you the parents, the lady and gentlemen experts, the matriarchs, the patriarchs, the knowledgeable young adults and youth that have come from the colleges of Waikato, welcome, welcome, welcome, welcome in good health, welcome with all you bring, welcome in kinship.]
In October 2023, the Crown, together with Maniapoto, Raukawa, and Waikato-Tainui, signed te Whakaaetanga Whakataunga mō Ō-Rākau, te Pae o Maumahara/the Deed of Agreement Relating to the Ō-Rākau Site, providing for the transfer of the Ō-Rākau Pā site, often referred to in my whānau as the Ō-Rākau Paewai site. Last April, the House held the first reading of this bill. To the many members and the many whānau, uncles, aunties, fathers-in-law—I was about to say sons-in-law; I’m not quite there yet—mothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, and others who have worked tirelessly for many, many years on the backs of the aspirations of our tūpuna matua, who have worked closely to return the whenua at Ō-Rākau and honour our tūpuna with those connections to that whenua—it’s required an immense amount of work, and I acknowledge the contributions of various representatives of Maniapoto, Raukawa, Waikato-Tainui, and indeed all hapū, iwi, and whānau who have worked with Crown officials to make this happen.
I acknowledge the other iwi, and mihi out to Ngāti Manawa, Ngāi Tūhoe, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Ngāti Te Kohera, Ngāti Whare, Te Arawa, the iwi and hapū of Te Wairoa and Te Tairāwhiti who are part of, and represented in, the battle with people such as Hine-i-turama and, of course, the whānau of Ahumai, Hone Teri, and Hitiri Te Paerata.
I wish to acknowledge the late Kiingi Tuheitia for his tireless leadership of this kaupapa and, indeed, many, many kaupapa. I’m reminded of his words last year:
Ia rā, ia wā, me Māori koe, e kore tātou e mate.
To Kuīni Nga wai hono i te Po, te kāhui ariki, te Tumuaki and others, nōku te ngākau iti rawa me te ngākau hūmārie ki te tuku i tēnei pire kia tae ki tōna whakarurunga i te taha o te tāmoko a te Kāwana-Tianara.
[Every day, all the time, you should be Māori, we will not die.
To Kuīni Nga wai hono i te po, the royal family, the Kingmaker and others, in diffidence and humility I present this bill for royal decree alongside the signature of the Governor-General.]
Ō-Rākau on 31 March 1864 was one of the most significant events in history—and her-story—of Aotearoa New Zealand, Ō-Rākau being the last battle in the war in the campaign of the Crown in Waikato. Compounding the loss of life experienced by whānau, hapū, and iwi who fought there was the loss of whenua itself. The year after the battle, in this Whare, the Crown confiscated hundreds of thousands of acres of land in the Waikato—1.2-plus million acres—similar in nature to our whānau in Taranaki, including the site at Ō-Rākau.
The historical context for this legislation recognises a national turning point. The three-day battle that began at
This legislation seeks to return the whenua te whenua i rere ai te toto
[the land on which blood flowed] to those who were present, those that were there on the day, during the battle, or had traditional connections or hononga to that whenua.
As a country, we have not always recognised the complexity and significance of the New Zealand wars to our nation’s history, and for many years many of our communities forgot about those wars, but some of us always retained that memory. We have all these battle sites around the world that we commemorated, and it’s through the work of Leah, Marama, and others that ensured we now have a wreath that celebrates, commemorates, and acknowledges the New Zealand Wars.
E mihi ana ki ērā wāhine tokorua, engari Te Kāreti o Ōtorohanga me ngā kāreti tautoko. E kore e taea te whakapuaki i aku mihi.
[I acknowledge those two ladies, but also Ōtorohanga College and the other colleges in support. My thanks will never be able to fully flourish.]
Ō-Rākau site for themselves, ā-tinana, ā-kanohi [in person, with their own eyes], to see and feel for themselves the profound importance of this place. I acknowledge and thank the members of the committee for their diligence and for their mahi, and I thank the many who made submissions and brought forward the names of tūpuna to be recorded in the legislation. I mihi out to our uncles and aunties, Dr Robert Joseph, and others who have done that tireless work—and it hasn’t finished. I’m sure in the future we will also find other tūpuna who we forgot or who didn’t quite make it into this legislation, and we can add them.
The inclusion of the word “remembrance” in the title of this bill speaks to this legislation’s part, and growing commitment, in this country to acknowledging and remembering the past. The House first read this bill last April; since then, the Māori Affairs Committee has heard submissions at Pārāwera Marae and travelled to the
They heard, as many of you will know, those
whakataukī that are connected with the site.
Ki te mate ngā tāne, me mate anō ngā wāhine me ngā tamariki. Ka whawhai tonu mātou āke, āke, āke.
Kāore e mau te rongo āke, āke, āke.
[If the men are to die, the women and children should also die. We will continue to fight for ever and ever.
Peace will never last for ever and ever.]
And, in my reflection, ko te utu he toto, he whenua; ko te whakautu he tuohu, he whakapāha, he whenua. [the price is blood and land; the response is to bow, an apology and land.]
I thank those who hosted our committee members, our fellow MPs, those at Pārāwera and elsewhere.
The bill vests title to this 9.7 hectare site, 5 kilometres east of Kihikihi, in those tūpuna of Ō-Rākau, the ancestors of Ō-Rākau. This unique arrangement acknowledges those that fought and were present at the battle and have those hononga—connections—to the land, not only those tūpuna from Ngā Ahi e Toru but tūpuna from throughout various iwi, those who went in support, in tautoko, of mana motuhake and rangatiratanga.
Ō-Rākau.
The battle site will be managed by a body representing the descendants of those tūpuna as well as their whānau, hapū, and iwi. The Crown is also providing some pūtea to support groups and rōpū who have connections to this site and to tell their stories, share their experiences, convey their whakaaro on the history and her-story of
Alongside its national importance, there are many whānau, hapū, and iwi for whom this site carries a very deep personal significance, because they descend from the traditional owners of the land or from those that took part in defending Ō-Rākau. I know some of those descendants who are not here today—like Uncle Harold, Uncle Denny, and others—many of them have passed on and they are represented here today by many of you, all of you, actually, who are represented here today and the many descendants throughout Aotearoa and indeed throughout the world, including, might I add,
my three children, one of whom, Tiaria, is named after one of her tūpuna.
I sincerely hope that the management and ownership arrangements in this bill provide a model for those connections to be appropriately recognised and honoured, and, as I said in the pō’hiri earlier today, it provides an important and possibly exemplary example of other mahi that is to come.
The next steps: the site, once this bill is passed, will transfer 21 working days after the Royal assent by our Governor-General, Cindy Kiro, which will provide for it to be vested before the 161st anniversary of this battle.
Te matua, Tame, Tuku, koutou ngā kākahi whakairoiro, ngā kahikatea me ngā tōtara haemata o Ngā Ahi e Toru, koutou ngā kākā kura, ngā manu kārearea a ngā iwi katoa, a ngā whānau katoa i tautoko atu i ēnei mahi rangatira. E kore e taea te kawe i aku whakaaro katoa e pā ana ki tēnei kaupapa whakahirahira, tēnei kaupapa whakaharahara.
Engari nāku te kōrero, nā ngā tūpuna hoki i whakamāunu te waka. Nā tō tātou kīngi, a Tuheitia, katoa me koutou, e te matua Muraahi, i whakaputa ki waho moana. I riro māku me ēnei nā kia kore ia e riro ki te korokoro o Te Parata, engari te whakahoki ki uta, ki uta, ki uta, ki reira whakatairanga ai.
Tēnā tātou katoa.
[The patriarch, Tame, Tuku, you the finely adorned leaders, the luminaries and eminent personages of Ngā Ahi e Toru, you the eloquent spokespeople, the fierce guardians of all iwi, of all whānau that supported this noble work. All my thoughts regarding this grand enterprise, this great initiative, cannot be conveyed.
However, as I have said, it was the ancestors that launched the canoe. It was our king, Tuheitia, alongside all of you, Mr Muraahi, that sailed it out to sea. And it has fallen to me and these here to not allow it to fall to calamity, but instead to return it to shore, inland, to its destination, there to be raised up.]
Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Ka tū ahau ki te tautoko i tēnei pire i tāna pānuitanga tuatoru ki roto i te Whare i te rā nei. Ka whai atu anō au i ngā taumata kōrero i whakaritehia e tōku tupuna, ā, i tōku tuakana, a Tama Potaka, ko te whakaaro nui ki te hunga kua riro atu ki te pō. E tōku whaea, e te Makau Ariki, ka kite atu ahau i a koe, ka whai whakaaro tō tamaiti ki tōku matua, ki te Kīngi kua riro atu ki te pō. Ka tāpae ake ki runga i tana waka tīwaewae te tini me te mano kua riro atu ki roto i ngā marama tata kua pahure ake nei, tau iho mai nei ki te tau hou a te Pākehā, ana i te rironga o tō tātau whaea a Tariana, ana huri tū atu ki te tairāwhiti ki tō tātau whaea, ki a Iritana. Kāti, ko rātau katoa tēnā e kawea nei i ngā kaupapa Māori, ahakoa ka ahu mai te kaupapa i hea, ahakoa ka tau te kaupapa i hea, ka whai whakaaro ake te hunga ora ki te Wāhi Ngaro, anā ki te momo o ērā rangatira i riro atu ki tua o te ārai. Nō reira, e ngā mana nui, e ngā tapu nui, e ngā tini whanaunga huri noa i tō tātau whare, nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai. Whakatau mai rā koutou ki roto i te āhuatanga o tēnei kaupapa, me te mea anō hoki ka rongo atu ahau i ngā roimata kua māringi iho mai nei i ngā kamo o tōku tuakana, a Tama. Koinā te āhuatanga mehemea ka noho mai he Māori ki roto ki tēnei whare, te Whare i tāhae i tō tātau whenua, te Whare kua roa rawa e pēhi ana i ngā kōrero a ngā mātua tūpuna kia mate rā anō.
Nō reira ka rongo atu ahau i te kōrero a tōku tuakana, a Tama Potaka, me te tautoko ake i ngā kōrero e whakatau nei i a koutou, e ngā mana nui, e ngā tapu nui, e ngā hapū, ngā iwi maha kei roto i a koutou, nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai. E tika ana ka tautoko ake i te kōrero a tōku tuakana, a Tama Potaka, mō te āhuatanga mō ā tātau rangatahi, nā rātau te petihana i kawea mai ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare Pāremata e hia nei tau ki muri. Ki runga i te karanga o tōku tuakana, ka kite atu ahau i a Paraone, tōku matua nei a Kaawhia, hōmai he rā. Nā, ka tau mai te petihana ki mua i te aroaro o tēnei Whare, e te Māngai o te Whare, ana i reira ahau me ētahi atu kei roto i te Whare nei. Nō reira e mihi atu ana ki ā tātau rangatahi e kowhita nei, e kowhita tonu nei i te ahi o maumahara ki roto i a tātau.
[Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to support this bill at its third reading in the House today. I follow the standards of speech set by my ancestor, oh, my elder brother, Tama Potaka, in terms of recognition of the people who have passed into the night. To my mother, Makau Ariki, I see you there and your child thinks of my parent, the late King. We load upon his mourning waka the multitudes who have departed over recent months, right through to the Pākehā new year, including the passing of our matriarch Tariana, and turning to the east coast, to our matriarch, Iritana. They were stalwarts within Māori affairs, regardless of where an issue arose and where it landed, the living turn our thoughts to the Afterworld, that is, to the calibre of the leaders who have passed beyond. Therefore, to the great authorities, to the sacred, to the many kinspeople around our House, welcome, welcome, welcome. Welcome to you within the nature of this matter, as I hear the tears that have fallen from the eyes of my elder brother, Tama. That is the nature of things. If Māori come into this House, the House that stole our land, the House that has suppressed the narratives of our parents and ancestors until they disappeared.
Thus, I hear the speech of my elder brother, Tama Potaka, and I endorse his comments of welcome to you, the great authorities, the sacred ones, the many hapū and tribes among you, welcome, welcome, welcome. It is appropriate to support the words of my elder brother Tama Potaka with regard to our young people, who brought the petition before the Parliament so many years before. Based on my elder brother’s call, I recognise Paraone, my parent Kaawhia, give a day. Now, when the petition was presented to this House, I was there together with some other members in the House. Thus, I acknowledge our young people who are continuing to ignite the fire of remembrance within us.]
I acknowledge the reference that the Minister made to our young people who carried the petition here to Parliament, which indeed paved the way for not just this bill but discussions around battle places, battle sites of significance, in Aotearoa from the top of the North to the bottom of the South. I can say that before coming in here, I was the chairperson of the Ruapekapeka Pā, or battle site, in the Far North and had the good fortune of meeting a number of people who were directly linked to this particular bill—namely my matua Kaawhia Muraahi and a few others who continue to drive a kaupapa.
In acknowledging those young New Zealanders—our young Māori, our young community leaders—I do want to acknowledge the likes of Kaawhia Muraahi; I do want to acknowledge the likes of Mr Tom Roa and so many others who, when it wasn’t in vogue to continue to teach the stories of our ancestors, continued to hold the mauri and the fire within not just them but so many others who are no longer with us here today. If it wasn’t for them, their stories, their knowledge, the words and deeds of our ancestors could have been forgotten to time. But we are lucky to have people like them who have continued to support the voices of our ancestors into today and, of course, into the future. So in acknowledging our young people, I want to acknowledge our old people too.
I too was here when we unveiled the memorial plaque in the House, here in the Chamber, and it was once again the likes of our strong iwi of Waikato, Maniapoto, and many others from right across the country who came here to unveil that, to acknowledge just how important it is to remember these stories. This bill does that, and I hope that it also proves itself to be a mechanism or at least a pathway to allow so many other important battle sites across the country to gain similar or same recognition.
I think of the many from where I come from in the Far North to the many across the Waikato and right across the country, Bay of Plenty, so many other places where we know that if actions weren’t taken—by, in particular, Māori ancestors but I will also say Pākehā farmers—to protect this land, it wouldn’t have happened. It just simply would not have happened. For the many people who drive on the roads around this country, they’ll drive past these places without giving it a second thought. But it was the deeds of so many that made sure that now not only is Ō-Rākau on the map, so too is Kihikihi. I’d never been to Kihikihi—ha, ha! In fact, I was talking to my tuakana Rawiri Waititi about Kihikihi and he thought it was at the back of the marae!
None the less, what it does, not just for Ō-Rākau, the site itself, but, more importantly, is ensure the stories and the rich tapestry of heritage that all of the tribes and all of those of our ancestors who participated at Ō-Rākau will be heard; will continue to be a part of a story that doesn’t limit itself to Ō-Rākau alone. In fact, it stretches to the many places that the Minister referred to in his contribution in the third reading here; from as far across to the East Coast to further north to further south, that entire story can now be spoken of, celebrated, and indeed acknowledged here by the passing of this bill.
I was fortunate to have been subbed on to the Māori Affairs Committee when the committee went to the marae at Pārāwera and also had the opportunity to walk across the hallowed lands at the battle site of Ō-Rākau, and I want to thank the people who hosted us humbly and with a great aroha to share their stories. I recall a number of the submissions where tears were flowing. It’s really hard as a committee member—whether you’re Māori or whether you’re Pākehā—to sit there and hear these stories. And I remember looking across members of the committee thinking, “Man, we’ve got an opportunity to do something really important.” That doesn’t always happen when you’re a member of Parliament. I can tell you that some of the members across the House sit on the committee and think, “By crikey, what is it we’re doing here again?” But this one was special.
Perhaps a word of advice to this Government, as we’ve seen a whole number of bills that impact on Māori and indeed this nation as they have been pushed through the submission process: perhaps we should take more to the marae, where our people can be heard; where the issues that they raise can be actually heard and felt, as it was for myself and the committee members on Pārāwera Marae that day. Not only was it confronting and it was passionate but it was also delivered with so much humility that for somebody like myself and my tūpuna who weren’t at the Battle of Ō-Rākau, I could feel it. So I leave that suggestion on the floor for this Government to consider as we look at so many other bills currently going through—and future bills. Let’s take them to the marae. Zoom committee meetings just aren’t good enough, and I think our people, and New Zealanders right across, deserve so much more.
In the final minute, I cast my mind back to that call for hōmai he rā. [give a day] The call that asked to give recognition and the day in this country to commemorate the many battles that took place. I attended a number of those wānanga—in fact, unwittingly, I must have popped out to go and make a phone call but when I came back in, I was the chairperson! It wasn’t for long as I had entered Parliament and then ended up having to step down and pass it on to others. But the importance for us to continue to remember and commemorate those battles—key battles, small battles, battles of large significance across the country—is really important. One of the key ways we can do that, in encouraging our young people to continue to carry on those stories in that rich tapestry of our heritage and our history, is we must continue to support local stories and local communities for local people. It starts there and then, once it grows, it’ll spread its aroha and its wisdom to everybody right across Aotearoa and across international shores. I stand on behalf of the Labour Party to support this bill in its third reading.
Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi to the descendants of the tūpuna o ŌRākau, who are here today in the House. As I scrambled my way to the House this morning in the rain, I was trying to think where I would find a peach. I didn’t have time to get one, and I showed up in the kitchen of the Green Party office and there was a bowl of heritage peaches—thank you to Celia Wade-Brown. These are an old variety of peaches. I have three here for Ngā Ahi e Toru Ō-Rākau: Maniapoto, Tainui, and Raukawa.
The Battle of Ō-Rākau was fought in a peach grove. The reason for it being fought in a peach grove planted by the iwi was because the land on which the peaches grew was the aim of the invaders of the Waikato. Also, when the munitions ran out in the pā at Ō-Rākau, where 300 defended—men, women, and children—they were forced to use peach stones to arm the muskets against Cameron’s army, which outnumbered them by five times and had rifles and had cannons.
Rewi Maniapoto was a reluctant battler. Waikato was the granary of the North Island. The wife of the Chief Justice—Mary Martin—observed, when she visited there in the 1840s, that the women sat under trees, sewing flour bags while healthy children and babies swarmed around. Governor Grey himself visited the district in 1849 and he said that he had never seen a more thriving or contented population in any part of the world—he had never seen a more thriving and contented population in any part of the world. There were wheat fields and peach groves as far as the eye could see. It is that very same Governor Grey who led the deliberate war of conquest of the Waikato to steal that abundance from tangata whenua Māori. That is the reason for the Waikato invasion, egged on by the entrepreneurs of Auckland.
I watched a movie last night that I have been wanting to watch for some time, and I could justify it on the basis of it being my job. The movie was Ka Whawhai Tonu. It is a very moving account of the Battle of Ō-Rākau. I recommend all members of the House and members of the country to go and see that movie. I understand that some of the actors in the movie were endorsed by the descendants of those who fought at Ō-Rākau, to represent their ancestors. It occurred to me that those actors who played the British soldiers on the other side are also potentially descendants of those who fought at Ō-Rākau, or perhaps they are descended from the settlers who were the beneficiaries of the spoils of war of the Waikato invasion. It occurs to me that we of British descent—we New Zealanders—must own our part in the Battle of Ō-Rākau and in the Waikato Wars. We cannot be responsible personally for the actions of our ancestors, but we must account for the consequences of those actions, and we must, for the good of our descendants, seek to dull the blood on our hands.
That may seem like strong words, but let us recall that the consequences of the Waikato invasion was the loss of land, a profound consequence for iwi Māori. And I just want to recount that there was little to be found—in fact I would say nothing to be found—of honour on the British side. The worst atrocities in the New Zealand Wars were committed in Waikato and Bay of Plenty in the 1860s. And if we are to account for those atrocities—even those at the time knew how bad it was. A correspondent for the New Zealander newspaper reported that at Ō-Rākau—and forgive me for recounting this story, because it is not words that we want to hear—many women were slaughtered and many children were slain. These were amongst the trophies, as he called it, of ŌRākau, and civilisation, as he called it, in pursuit, as it returned from the chase, amused itself by shooting the wounded as they lay upon the ground. It’s grisly stuff, it’s terrible stuff, but it is the truth of our history.
As a 55-year-old, I know that 55 years is a very short time, and 1864 is recent history. There’s a gentleman here today—a kaumātua—who was raised by his grandmother, who was a child at the Battle of Ō-Rākau, if I understand correctly. That’s how recent this history is.
For us to account for that history and make good on it—in the words of Vincent O’Malley, “acknowledging this difficult history is not a recipe for endless division and recrimination, as some critics like to allege, but rather a precondition for genuine reconciliation. Owning up to our troubled past requires guts and grit. … it is an essential step in the process of maturing as a society.”
If the objective of the invasion was land, then, surely, the recompense must be the return of land. Let’s recall that 10 days after, after the Rangiaowhia horrors, the surveyors were in Kihikihi, dividing up the land and giving it out to the soldiers who’d fought in the battle—10 days. It is 161 years since the Battle of Ō-Rākau, and finally, here today, we are returning a portion of that land. We must be bold as a nation and be willing to return more. This is for the good of all of us—for the good of justice for Māori, for the good of the cohesion of our nation. We as tangata Tiriti must be endorsing and supporting of hoki whenua mai, the return of land to tangata whenua Māori. Why are we so afraid of giving the land back? Maybe it would be planted in wheat fields and olive groves again, and for somebody who’s got a problem with too many dairy cows, I would be happy if the Waikato became wheat fields and olive groves again—olive groves, did I say? I meant peach groves.
“The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice.” is the famous saying of Martin Luther King. I don’t think it is inevitable that it bends towards justice; I believe it is us who must bend that arc towards justice. We must take active actions to do that. On this day, some drop of justice is done—some small drop, which is like fresh water—to make amends for the unjust blood spilt at Ō-Rākau. May that drop of justice become a stream of justice; may it become a river of justice for Māori in this land. For the good of all of our sakes, hoki whenua mai. I commend this bill to the House.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to speak in favour of Te Pire mō Ō-Rākau, Te Pae o Maumahara/Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill.
It dawns on me quite strongly that my first name is shared with General Cameron, who was the General in charge of the Waikato War. This is something that I’ve been aware of my entire life, being from Tauranga, with Cameron Rd running down the middle. No doubt, many of us in this room right now also recognise that once the battles had ceased in Waikato, across the Kaimai, they went to Tauranga where we had Pukehinahina and Te Ranga battle sites. I’d like to start with that, just to get that out of the way, and then welcome Ngā Ahi e Toru—Maniapoto, Raukawa, and Waikato—representatives to this room to receive this or to hear what is being given out and receive what we’re trying to say in this House, which I think is that we are, as a Crown, recognising the blood on our hands—perhaps, as the previous speaker, Steve Abel, would say; I am going to quibble and say I don’t want to hear someone say there’s blood on my children’s hands. I don’t think that’s going to help, so I repudiate that, but I do think the Crown has got a debt to pay and this is a very small part of paying it.
I’m quite honoured to follow the Hon Peeni Henare in his speech where he described going to Kihikihi and out to Ō-Rākau. I made an effort as a younger kid. I got a car when I was probably too young to have one and spent a lot of time not in school, and one of the things that I did was I took an interest in battle sites in New Zealand. I remember finding the Battle of Te Ranga, and I felt like I discovered something, because I had to find these old maps and things and then break through a hedgerow off the highway out the back of Pyes Pā, to find an overgrown cow paddock with some bumps in it, and a concrete plinth that marked that site. I’m glad to see that, today, that site is getting more recognition, and the Bay of Plenty councils and others are putting an effort into commemorating that site in a proper way.
I had the same experience at Ō-Rākau where, as a builder, I was working in Waitomo and driving that road quite a lot—this is pre-politics—and I took an effort to find sites and go and visit them. I remember Ō-Rākau, and I thought, “Is this really this massive battle, this important place, this place where so much history unfolded for two cultures and one country?”, because all I saw was a plinth in a car park and a few little plaques.
I went to Ō-Rākau. Actually, I’d recommend that anyone in this House—there’s a lot of members in this House who go to Fieldays every year; it’s not far out of the way. You should go and visit. I did that again this year at Fieldays, while I was over there. I thought how I hoped that this part of the House, the Crown giving this land, vesting it, as it were, in the rightful guardians, will mean that the site will get the—so it’s not just a young kid, wagging school, trying to learn about the history of New Zealand and probably getting a better job of it than I was at the time in school. I hope that this site will be brought up to a place where New Zealanders will learn and remember what happened in New Zealand’s history and start that path, which we are only just starting, on making sure that this country can be somewhere where people can look each other in the eye perhaps, and not feel ashamed of what has happened before.
It’s moving to have heard the stories of the select committee going to marae and seeing, face to face, the people who clearly feel the wounds of today that were inflicted on their tūpuna of the past. I wish I could have been there; I could only imagine what that would have felt like, but as the previous speakers have said, this is probably one step in recognising more of New Zealand’s history, in particular the Land Wars, and I think that, hopefully, I will have an opportunity to be at one of these events in the future.
I suppose I’ll just finish by saying that this is something that the ACT Party supports because it continues New Zealand on a path where we recognise our history and come together as a people for the betterment of the future, but recognising and acknowledging the past and the mamae, the pain, that is still with us to this day. Thank you.
Te Reo Māori. E ngā mātāwaka, e ngā kahurangi, e ngā taiawatea, e ngā maiangi, e ngā kaihautū o tēnei kaupapa, tō koutou waka kua ū mai ki te ākau tōrangapū e kīia nei ko te Whare Pāremata, tēnā koutou ka tae mai kia tū tahi mō te whakatutukitanga o tēnei pire.
Tō mua, me mihi ki te kapa tamariki nā rātau te kaupapa nei i waha i roto i ngā tau pahemo tata ake nei. Nōku i te tamariki kāhore he tamariki pērā i roto i ngā kura i kurangia ai mātau. Tua atu i tēnā, me mihi atu ki te kapa o ngā ringa raupā i āta whakamākuku i te purapura i waenga tonu i ō koutou hapū, i waenga tonu i te hapori Pākehā, hapori Māori mēnā e taea rānei tēnei kaupapa kia ea ai. Arā noa atu a Kaawhia, arā noa atu a Tāme, a Kataraina, a Maniapoto i raro i te takinga a Te Matakaheru me tērā tuakana ōku, a Tuku. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātau katoa.
Nōku i te kura i Tipene, i tae atu tō mātau kura ā-kanohi, ā-tinana ki te wāhi e whakatairangatia ana i tēnei rā. Otirā e rua kē ngā wāhi i tae ai mātau: tō mua, ko Ō-Rākau, tō muri ko te rākau e kīia nei, ko Huipūtea. Nā te pōhauhau o te kamupene hiko te rākau tūturu i kīia ai ko Huipūtea i turakina. I reira tō koutou ruānuku, a Hēnare Tūwhāngai, tā te mea tāna mokopuna he mea kura tahi me mātau. Kātahi ka whakamāramatia mai e tērā tohunga, e tērā mārohirohi, te tātai o taua rākau. I waenga tonu i a Ngāpuhi, ko te kupu mō Te Wherowhero, ko Te Kiripakapaka. Hei āta panipani tana tinana ki te hinu, ki te uku, tāna rite he wherowhero. Ka hopukina engari horekau i mau. Ka arumia, horekau i mau. Ka puta, katahi ka tatū i a Ngapuhi, kua ngā te hiahia. Te mate kē o tōku tupuna, o Hongi Hika, e kore rawa atu e ngā. Kātahi ka kī atu a Te Kanawa ki te ariki o Hokianga, ki a Pōroa, me rapu me pēhea rānei tētahi hurumanu e ea ai. Ka kī atu a Pōroa ki a Hongi, hei a koe tēnei rā, hei ahau te pō me te rangi kei tua, ka houhia te rongo. He korenga nō taku tupuna, a Huipūtea, i whai, ka tūpono atu ki ngā wāhine ātaahua o roto i a Tainui. I roto i te pō, ka whakakoretakengia ngā toa o Ngāpuhi. Ka hokihoki mai ngā tama tāne i roto i a Waikato, ka pau katoa a Ngāpuhi i te patupatu, te hunga i poka noa ai ki te whakakāhore i te kupu i oti i tōku ariki, i a Pōroa e kīia nei ko te hurumanu. I muri mai, ka tonoa e Te Wherowhero te kōtiro a Kati kia whakamoea mārikatia ki te tamaiti a Rewa, te tuakana o Hongi Hika. Ka mau te rongo, ka mau te rongo, ka mau te rongo. Tēnā koutou, e Waikato, i haere mai ai, e kara, e Tame, i te wā i whakakaupapatia ai tēnā mahi ki Kerikeri nō roto i ngā tau pahure tata ake nei.
Pai kē me hakaputa e ahau ērā tātai kōrero, tā te mea me kaua te tangata e titiro ki Ō-Rākau ānakenake. Arā noa atu te ātaahua o ngā kōrero kei waenga tonu i a tātau, a Māori. Me ū unuki tātau ki aua kupu kia kaua rawa atu e waiho ko ēnei mahi ānakenake e kīia ai tātau he hunga taketake. Nā reira, mihi atu ki te hunga nā rātau te kaupapa nei i whakatairanga.
[In Māori. To the many people, the precious ones, the rising generations, the leaders of this initiative, your canoe has reached the political bay known as the Parliament House, greetings as we come together for the completion of this bill.
First, I should acknowledge the group of young people who carried this initiative over recent years. When I was a youngster, there were no young people like this at the schools that we attended. Further to that, I acknowledge the group of toilers who watered the seed within your hapū, within the Pākehā community and the Māori community to seek to carry this initiative to its conclusion. There is Kaawhia, there is Tāme, Kataraina, Maniapoto, under the tutelage of Te Matakaheru and my older brother, Tuku. Greetings to you and to us all.
When I was at school at St Stephens, our school visited the site we are celebrating today in person. That is, we went to two places: first was Ō-Rākau, after that was the tree known as Huipūtea. Through the thoughtlessness of an electricity company, the original tree known as Huipūtea was cut down. Your sage, Hēnare Tūwhāngai, was there at that time, because his grandson went to school with us. Thus, the expert tōhunga explained to us the history of the tree. Within Ngāpuhi, Te Wherowhero is known as Te Kiripakapaka. He covered his body in oil and clay and looked reddish. He was captured but not held. He was chased but not caught. He escaped and came upon Ngāpuhi, who had satisfied their desire. The problem with my ancestor, Hongi Hika, was that he was never satisfied. Thus, Te Kanawa said to the chief of Hokianga, to Pōroa, we should seek to establish a peace to satisfy matters. Pōroa said to Hongi, “You may have today; I shall have the night and the next day.”, and peace was made. My ancestor, Huipūtea, did not follow this. Rather, he came upon the beautiful women of Tainui. In the night, the warriors of Ngāpuhi were rendered useless. The young men returned to Waikato and Ngāpuhi were completely destroyed, the people who had dared to disobey the word of my chief, Pōrua, who declared peace. Following that, Te Wherowhero directed that the daughter of Kati should be married to the son of Rewa, the elder brother of Hongi Hika. Thus, peace was made and maintained. Greetings to you, Waikato, who came forth, my friend, Tāme, to commemorate this event at Kerikeri in recent years.
It is appropriate for me to recount these histories, because one should not look to Ō-Rākau alone. There are many more beautiful stories within us as Māori. We should hold fast to those narratives so we do not simply leave it for only these actions to be acknowledged as indigenous people. Thus, I acknowledge the people who have promoted this issue.]
During 2017 and 2020, my leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, encouraged me to find some pūtea to address the outstanding matters of rehabilitating Ruapekapeka, Rangiriri Pā, and other places of such significance. And, of course, that may sound incongruous, given the ebb and flow of political rhetoric at the moment, but let it be known that any fair-minded New Zealander, once they are told the broad and factual story, has no hesitation in embracing the entirety of our history. As I’ve said in te reo, I acknowledge the efforts of the rangatahi with their petition. And, as I said, we never had kids like that in any school where I was educated, because we’re of the generation who either took things for granted or such history was regarded as the preserve of our kaumātua and it was not freely shared.
This bill, which is about to pass, ought to be seen as an opportunity for not only the broader Waikato community but for all Kiwis to acknowledge and to learn about the history as we march towards 2040, because there are no saints, purely; there are no sinners, solely, in our history. There are hoariri, friends in anger, who, if mistreated, if misunderstood, become foe in perpetuity. That’s not the vision of this Parliament.
As I’ve said, I acknowledge all of the leaders and I want to acknowledge them also in English: Kataraina, Kaawhia, the leadership from Te Arawa, the leadership including Tame Roa, Tuku, Te Matakaheru from Maniapoto. This is a significant day for you.
I just want to finish up by saying there is a rich array of history scattered throughout our landscape. History did not begin just when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed; the history goes well before the Treaty of Waitangi. Let’s not condemn or constrain ourselves only to talking about the history we may or may not have learnt through Waitangi Tribunal claims.
In the 1820s, the Ngāpuhi went to this area. There was a tree not far from the site called Huipūtea, named after my tūpuna from Mangakahia. As a consequence of not following the peace-making that had been entered into to end the hostilities of that time after Mātakitaki and the beauty and shrewdness of the Waikato women, he met a grisly end. That is the origin of the name of the Huipūtea tree. It does not mean where the treasures were lain. However, far be it for me to say that Waikato women aren’t treasures. Kia ora tātou.
Now, I just want to confirm—I want to say thank you; the Green Party has given your call to Te Pāti Māori. Is this intended to be two split calls or one call?
Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: One 10-minute call.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I call Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke.
Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka. E mihi ana ki te pīka kātahi anō ka kōrero i mua i a au. [Thank you, Madam Speaker. I acknowledge the speaker who has just spoken before me.] If only we could have that Matua Shane every day.
Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, tēnā rā tātou e te Whare.
Ko ngā uri o te raupatu e ngunguru nei, i au au aue ha.
Kiingi Tuheitia ki te rangi; te tapu nui, te tapu roa, te tapu whakatiketike o tō tātou ariki nui, Kuīni Nga wai hono i te po Pōtatau Te Wherowhero VIII, koe e noho mai nei i runga i tō torona. Tae noa ki tō tātou nei Makau Ariki, ka nui taku hari ki te kite i a koe kua tae ā-tinana mai ki te whakakanohi. Tēnā rawa atu koe.
Te Ariki Tapairu, a Hēni, te Tumuaki, rirerire hau, pai mārire.
E tū ana ahau i runga i te whakaiti. Kua mahea ngā taumahatanga o te wā i te whakaekenga mai o tōku iwi ake ki runga o Pāremata. Kua tae mai te waka o Tainui, Ngā Ahi e Toru, ngā uri o te raupatu.
Tēnei te mihi, te reo whakamiha ki te mana whenua, e Kura, mō tō koutou reo pōwhiri mai ki a tātou i te ata nei.
Ka hoki ake ki te kōrero a Tama Potaka i te ata nei, “nau mai ki te Whare o te raupatu”. Nau mai ki tō koutou Whare. Kawea mai ko ngā whakaahua hei iringa mahara. Kawea mai ko ngā taonga kātahi anō ka hoki mai, kawea mai. Mā ngēnei taonga ka tū hei tohu mō te whakahirahiratanga o te wairua o ngō mātou mātua tūpuna.
Te Korowai a Mangamanga-i-atua, te taiaha kātahi anō ka whakawhārikihia ki konei.
I mua rā anō i taku kauwhau, me mihi ka tika ki Te Pāti Kākāriki i tā koutou takoha mai.
[Thank you, Madam Speaker, greetings to us of the House.
Hear the descendants of the conquest roar, au au aue ha.
King Tuheitia in the heavens; the great, eternal and elevated sanctity of our great monarch, Queen Nga wai hono i te po Pōtatau Te Wherowhero VIII, you who sits upon your throne. Also our Dowager Queen, I am very happy to see you come here in person to represent. Many thanks to you.
Princess Hēni, the Kingmaker, peace and goodwill.
I stand in humility. The stress of the time has cleared with the arrival of my very own iwi to Parliament. The ancestral canoe of Tainui, Ngā Ahi e Toru and the descendants of the conquest have arrived.
I acknowledge and thank the people of this region, Kura, for your voice of welcome to all of us this morning.
I return to the statement Tama Potaka made this morning, “welcome to the House of conquest”. Welcome to your House. Bring with you the images to serve as a memorial. Bring with you the treasures that have only recently been returned. Bring them. May these treasured items stand as testament to the significance of the spirit of our ancestors.
Te Korowai a Mangamanga-i-atua, the taiaha that has just been laid here.
Before my speech, it is most appropriate that I thank the Green Party for what you have gifted me.]
I’d like to thank the Green Party for giving me an extra five minutes in this slot.
A letter from the Crown to the people of Waikato: the warning reads, “To the Natives who reside in the Manukau District in the Waikato frontier, you are hereby required immediately to take your oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen and to give up your Arms to an Officer appointed by the Government for that purpose. Natives that comply with this order will be protected. However, Natives who refuse are hereby warned to leave the district aforementioned and retired beyond Waikato, past the Mangatāwhiri River or you will be ejected”—I repeat—“ejected.” This was the beginning of the biggest campaign of the New Zealand Wars in the invasions of Waikato.
Kotahi mano, waru rau, ono tekau mā whā te tau, Maehe te marama, i whakawhiti mai te ope taua o te Pākehā, a te Karauna i te ringa toto o Kāwana Kerei i Ōrākau, i te iwi o Rewi Manga Maniapoto. Ki te aha? Ki te muru, ki te raupatu i ōku whenua.
Ka tautokona te karanga a Rewi Manga Maniapoto e ngā iwi, waka maha o Tūwharetoa, Te Rautakitahi a Tūhoe, Kahungunu me Te Arawa. Taku whakapae, ka kore rawa ō mātou mātua tūpuna i matapoporetia 161 tau ka hipa, ka tū tonu ko ngā uri o Rewi Maniapoto ki roto ki te Whare o te Karauna ake ki te rongo ki te whakapāha a te ringa toto ki a mātou, ngā uri o te raupatu.
[It was in the year 1864, during the month of March, that the British forces, the Crown, the bloodied hands of Governor Grey crossed over at Ōrākau, from the people of Rewi Manga Maniapoto. For what purpose? To confiscate and conquer my lands.
The call of Rewi Manga Maniapoto was answered by the many iwi and waka of Tūwharetoa, Te Rautakitahi a Tūhoe, Kahungunu and Te Arawa. I would assert that our ancestors and forbears would never have foreseen that, 161 years later, the descendants of Rewi Maniapoto would still stand within the House of the Crown to hear the apology of the bloodied hands to us, the descendants of the conquest.]
Against all odds, the descendants of the Battle of Ō-Rākau, 161 years later, sit in this Chamber listening to the apologies for the heinous acts of the Crown. These were the Land Wars that were inflicted on our people of Waikato and Māori throughout the country—300 people to defend Ō-Rākau against 1,500 soldiers. This lasted over three days and 12,000 square kilometres of land.
There will be no hakas from me today. I will leave that to the professionals for next week in Taranaki.
He moumou wā taku haka i te rā nei. He aha ai? Nā runga anō i te mea kua haka kētia e ngā hōia ki te kauhanga riri. Kua haka kētia e Ahumai Te Paerata ki te mura o te ahi.
[It would be a waste of time for me to haka today. Why? Due to the fact that it has already been performed by the soldiers on the field of war. It has already been performed by Ahumai Te Paerata in the heat of battle.]
I was 11 years old, a part of Te Pūtake o Te Riri haka at Ō-Rākau Pā site when the then Prime Minister at the time, the Hon John Key, attended. Eleven years later, nōku te Hōnore ki te tuku kōrero mō te otinga ake o tēnei pire. [it is my honour to offer some statements regarding the resolution of this bill.]
As a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, we attended Pārāwera Marae last year, listening to the hearings of many, many whānau. There are a few submissions that I want to make a point of and relay in the House. First of all, the descendants of those who brought the many faces, names, photos, taonga, and stories who battled at Ō-Rākau pā.
To Chris Kay, who was a previous owner of the land and stated it wasn’t until after he had purchased the land that he found out that it was a pā site which holds huge significance and importance—this must be entrenched in our laws that any significant Land Wars pā site, wāhi tapu, or any place of significance should be at least outlined in the Ts and Cs before purchasing, or, furthermore, even returned back as there are many exact similar situations where this happens all across the country.
To Leah Bell, who visited the Ō-Rākau Pā site on a high school trip in 2014, which moved herself and her peers to action a petition to commemorate the Land Wars of Aotearoa, He Rā Maumahara, and the introduction of New Zealand’s history curriculum in schools. This brings me to stress to this coalition statement of “Rebalancing of the current history’s education curriculum to be less focused on te ao Māori.” We must keep the New Zealand history curriculum in schools.
To Linda Campbell, a tangata Tiriti teacher who I quote: “We cannot underestimate the broad benefits people stand to gain. The Education Review Office reports that nine out of 10 teachers enjoy teaching New Zealand histories in schools. They make the learning more meaningful and relevant to their students. There are now more meaningful and relevant contexts to Te Tiriti o Waitangi within the history’s curriculum.”
Today, I come with immense gratitude that this is the first completion of a settlement within my rohe of Hauraki-Waikato in my time here. I come today with the heart and call of unity, the call of kotahitanga from our late King, Kiingi Tuheitia. It still echoes even in this House today. It was in his reign where he welcomed Prime Minister John Key in 2014 to Ō-Rākau for this bill. Not often does this House come together—all six parties. I often say that the last time we were all on the same waka in this House was a tribute we had for Kiingi Tuheitia. Today, I’m heartened that the House unites again to pass this bill in honour of our late King, and all those who fought at Ō-Rākau. Although there are different views from all sides of Parliament, I must acknowledge every party for commending this bill to proceed to the Hon Tama Potaka and his team.
I recently asked our whānau who were only here last week on the return of Maunga Taranaki, and them expressing their feelings in the constant contradiction of one day turning up to Parliament to an important day like this, and then another day slamming that side of the Government in oral submissions for the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill.
The 28th of October is held as a national day of significance for the Land Wars of Aotearoa. Te Pāti Māori states that this day should be held as a national public holiday, just as we commemorate Anzac. We must hold the same mana tauritetanga [equitable prominence] for the Land Wars that happened on this country’s very own soil. The Battle of Ō-Rākau heard the cries of Rewi Manga Maniapoto to his people: “Ka whawhai tonu mātou āke, āke, āke.” [“We will fight for ever and ever.”]
Only last year at the hīkoi of 100,000 people did I cry to my own “Ka ora tonu mātou āke, āke, āke.” [“We will live on for ever and ever.”]
What a privilege to say that, when I’ve never seen a barrel of a gun, when I’ve never been on a front line of a war site, when I’ve never seen bloodshed.
Ki te kore a Rewi i ngāna kupu “Ka whawhai.”, kua kore tēnei whakareanga e kōrero i te kupu o te ora. If it wasn’t for Rewi saying, “We must fight.”, this generation would never have been able to say we have survived.
E kore tēnei whakaoranga e huri ki tua o te mokopuna. Nō reira tēnā tātou e te Whare.
[This survival will never change beyond the grandchildren. And so greetings to us all of this House.]
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the next speaker, can I just thank the member for mentioning Leah Bell, who was my first youth MP for Taranaki-King Country. I’d like to acknowledge her as well.
E te Māngai, e ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā iwi, tēnā koutou katoa. Te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koe, te papa e takoto nei, tēnā koe. Ngā mate, haere, haere, haere. Ka mihi ki te iwi kāinga, Ngāti Raukawa, Ngāti Maniapoto, Waikato-Tainui. Nau mai, haere mai. Ko Tainui te waka, ko Waikato te awa, ko Kakepuku te maunga, ko Ngāti Maniapoto te iwi, ko Ngāti Huia te hapū, ko Te Kawau te marae, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.
[Madam Speaker, to the authorities, to the voices, to the tribes, greetings to you all. The House standing here, greetings. The land lying here, greetings. Those who have passed away, depart. I acknowledge the home people, Ngāti Raukawa, Ngāti Maniapoto, Waikato-Tainui. Welcome. Tainui is the canoe, Waikato is the river, Kakepuku is the mountain, Ngāti Maniapoto is the tribe, Ngāti Huia is the hapū, Te Kawau is the marae. Greetings, greetings to you all.]
I’d like to begin by tautoko-ing the acknowledgments made in this House, particularly those made by Minister Potaka. I would like to acknowledge all who have travelled south today to be here. I see many familiar faces in the audience. Thank you very much for your presence. Also, thank you to those of you tuning in, including my many whanaunga at home and around the country.
This is a significant bill. It is a bill that is small in the size of redress but huge in significance. It is a bill that recognises the courage and bravery in the face of certain defeat, to defend people’s values, whenua, and lives. It honours ō tūpuna—men, women, children—who had died or had a connection to the whenua. It acknowledges the loss of land, life, mana, sustenance, livelihoods, and identity and connection that was suffered. It acknowledges the intergenerational mamae carried since the Battle of Ō-Rākau.
This is a major step in the Crown acknowledging the past so that we and iwi and the Crown can focus on the future. It was my privilege to help shepherd this bill through the House as part of the select committee process. I had the privilege to visit Ō-Rākau twice: once on the 160th commemoration, and second, as a select committee member visiting Pārāwera Marae and the Battle of Ō-Rākau site. I must say, as a proud Maniapoto person, I learnt a lot from that battle, and there’s a lot that I didn’t know growing up, like the speakers who have gone before me today. I agree with my whanaunga across the way that it is important that we learn and continue to remember the significance of the Battle of Ō-Rākau, to name just one.
I wish to make some acknowledgments: firstly, to the rangatahi of Otorohanga College for their mahi, well over a decade ago, to bring a petition forward and the life that they brought to this kaupapa. I would like to honour and acknowledge Christopher Finlayson, the previous Minister, who had the foresight to purchase the land, and it has been mentioned, but I will mention once again, to Chris Kay and his wife for acknowledging the significance of this land and being willing to put it up for sale.
Hon Willie Jackson: It would be nice if the current Minister was here.
DAN BIDOIS: I’d like to acknowledge the current Minister—Minister Potaka—who arranged for the site to be transferred and for this bill to be brought forward. I’d also like to acknowledge the Crown officials, James Mitchell and Cameron Evans, and my fellow members of the Māori Affairs Committee, for your patience and your commitment to hearing the submissions in this House.
The future of this land is really up to the entity and the three iwi and the post-settlement governance entities, but I see a future that has endless possibilities. I do hope, like what I heard at the select committee submissions, that it will be used as a way to educate those in future generations, plus all New Zealanders, on the significance of this battle and what it means to local iwi and the rest of our country. The process of healing begins anew. E hoa, ka whawhai tonu mātau, ake ake ake—friend, we will fight on for ever, for ever, and for ever. I commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.
Tēnā koe. Otirā ki a koutou katoa kua tae mai ki te Pāremata nei, koutou o Raukawa, Maniapoto, Waikato-Tainui, anei hoki au e tuku mihi atu ki a koutou katoa, tae atu ki Te Kāhui Ariki, tae atu anō ki a koe e te Makau Ariki. Tēnei te mihi ake ki a koutou, otirā tēnā rā tātou katoa.
[Thank you. Indeed, to all of you who have arrived here at Parliament, those of you of Raukawa, Maniapoto, Waikato-Tainui, here I stand to acknowledge all of you, including the royal family and also yourself, the Dowager Queen. I hereby greet you, indeed all of us.]
Being speaker number eight in this debate pretty much means everything has been said. I’ll make a promise; I’m not going to repeat what’s already been said, but I think it’s really important to acknowledge the significance of this day. I was sitting here thinking about all of those who have passed and all of the actions that have been taken over a number of years.
I come from a little place called Rātana Pā. Where I come from, if you have the likes of the Hon Shane Jones, the Hon Tama Potaka, the Hon Peeni Henare on your paepae, when it gets to you, you’re probably not going to say much. My elders will say, “Yeah, well, we’ve probably heard enough.”
However, because I’m from Rātana Pā, I’ll talk about Rātana—in particular, a visit by Tupu Taingākawa to Rātana Pā. He came there and said to Rātana, “I come not for the healing of the body but I come for the healing of the land.” It reminded me that today, even after 161 years, we can still heal the wrongs of the past.
This is not the end day, though. This is just the beginning of a new journey that starts with the passing of this legislation that enables the people who were most impacted, the descendants of those who were in that battle, to find a way forward and to commemorate what had happened there. Why? So that our future generations will know the truth about our own history. Growing up in Aotearoa New Zealand, I did not learn that at school, and so I wanted to briefly acknowledge the day, acknowledge the significance of it.
I agree with pretty much what everyone has said, but I wanted to, in particular, point out what Steve Abel said around the—well, these are my characterisations of what he said, that something that happened 161 years ago was not an honourable act and today we do an honourable thing so that in the future we might remember not to do this again. Every member in this House should remember that, in 161 years, they’re going to judge what we’re doing today. My message to everyone in this room: be on the right side of history.
Nō reira kāore e roa tēnei tū, otirā e tika ana kia tuku mihi atu ki a koutou katoa i runga i te tukunga iho a rātou mā i te wāhi ngaro. Mā te Māngai hei tautoko mai āianei, āke nei, āe.
[And so this will not be a lengthy speech, indeed it is appropriate to acknowledge you all with regard to the legacy of those in the unseen place. May the Holy Mouthpiece support us now and for ever, amen.]
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Kei te tū au ki te kōrero mō te pire o Ō-Rākau. Ki a koutou, ngā uri o Ngāti Maniapoto, Ngāti Raukawa me Waikato-Tainui, e mihi ana ki a koutou.
[Greetings, Madam Speaker. I stand to speak on the Ō-Rākau bill. To you, the descendants of Ngāti Maniapoto, Ngāti Raukawa and Waikato-Tainui, I acknowledge you.]
It is an honour, as always, to take a call, but especially humbling, in this remembrance bill journey. It has absolute significance for the people who have made not just the long journey to Wellington today but the 161 years that it has taken for you to get to this day. The Battle of Ō-Rākau, to this day, holds immense significance for all of those who lost tūpuna there in 1864, and we welcome you all to this House. It’s also lovely to see all of the generations in the House today, for what is a historic day for you.
The legislation before us, Te Pire mō Ō-Rākau, Te Pae o Maumahara/Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill, is required to effect the deed of agreement relating to the Ō-Rākau site between the Crown, Maniapoto, Raukawa, and Waikato-Tainui. This bill enables the record of title for the Ō-Rākau site to be held in the names of the ancestors who fought at the Battle of Ō-Rākau or had other connections with the land. It enables Maniapoto, Raukawa, and Waikato to jointly have, and exercise, the rights and obligations of the registered owner of the site. The vesting and ownership arrangements in this bill are not redress provided in settlement of any historical claims under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, but the Ō-Rākau deed and this bill instead reflect the desire of all parties to acknowledge the history associated with, and the national significance of, the Battle of Ō-Rākau and to enable the recognition of ngā tūpuna associated with the Ō-Rākau site.
I was lucky enough to be on the select committee that travelled to Ō-Rākau. Thank you to all who hosted us there. We came to hear the submitters and to visit the site, and it’s always humbling to be welcomed to a place of such significance, not only to the people who were there that day but to all of those other iwi who hold Ō-Rākau as a special place in their heart, from as far away as many other places—Tūhoe, Te Arawa, Ngāti Manawa, Tūwharetoa, iwi from Tairāwhiti and Wairoa, and others. On the day we visited, I can recall the effort that had been made at the site to show us exactly what had happened in the battle at Ō-Rākau, and where those hosting us had dug a hole in the ground—for a while there, I wondered what that was for! I was worried they were going to put us in it! They dug the hole in the ground, with a scale model of the site, which was absolutely fantastic and an inspiring way to show us the story of what had happened in the battle at Ō-Rākau. It was a very moving day. It actually did see some of us with the odd tear in our eye, and I thank you for the effort you went to, to make that come alive for us that day.
I want to acknowledge all of the submitters who came and told us their stories. They were compelling, they were passionate, and they were very clear that it was time to make sure the whenua was returned to the people and that there was an effort to tell the story. Your site is a taonga, and it is a privilege for our select committee to have played a tiny—tiny—part in the process of returning it to your iwi as kaitiaki. The bill itself has limited scope to address the trauma experienced by the descendants of those involved in the battle at Ō-Rākau and its surrounding history, as well as your whānau, iwi, and hapū, but the Crown contention is that, by returning the whenua to iwi, it provides autonomy to the descendants of ngā tūpuna o Ō-Rākau to decide its future and support all of you to tell the stories in the way that you deem appropriate, and that the bill is just the start of the reconciliation and healing for current and future generations.
I’m also pleased the land is going back to this entity, because we should note that, in the 1880s, the Crown explored acquiring the battle site to gift to Te Kooti to keep him from returning to the East Coast. Well, I’m not sure how that would have worked out for Te Kooti, but much to the relief of the tūpuna, that arrangement fell through and, eventually, it came into the hands of the Kay family. It wasn’t until the Treaty negotiations with Raukawa that former Minister for Treaty Negotiations the Hon Chris Finlayson learnt of the significance of the site and put some considerable effort into the Crown acquiring the land and beginning the kōrero between all of the iwi—Raukawa, Maniapoto, and Waikato-Tainui—on what a combined approach to the site, the story, and the legacy might look like. In his submission, former landowner Chris Kay said it wasn’t long after purchasing the site that he and his wife, Sue, realised how important it was and that it needed to be a public space where those who had fought there and died there could be acknowledged and remembered. Now the site will be managed by the kaitiaki Ngā Ahi e Toru, and it will be their vision that brings the story and remembrance to the forefront for the future of this site. I understand the narratives will record the different perspectives, as each iwi has a story to tell that is to be celebrated and acknowledged.
In closing, I acknowledge those who have been on this journey who have not lived to see this day. It’s always sad for those who have spent a lot of time fighting for this day, and now I know that you will honour them in the way that is right. I wish you all the very best. I cannot wait to see what you do, as I know from the depth of feeling we witnessed through our visit to Kihikihi that it will be incredible. Thank you, also, for the book you gave us when we visited with you. It has taken 161 years for this book, but I think that you will need many, many more chapters to complete the rest of the story as you go forward and honour the site and the Battle of Ō-Rākau. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you to all of you for coming and for your patience in this journey. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
This call is a split call. I call Shanan Halbert.
Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Rapua te huarahi whānui hei ara whakapiri i ngā iwi e rua i runga i te whakaaro kotahi. Makau Ariki, tēnā koe. E te Kīngi, Pōtatau Te Wherowhero te tuawhitu, haere, haere, haere atu rā. Te hunga ora ki te hunga ora, Ngāti Maniapoto, Raukawa, Waikato-Tainui me mihi ki a koutou katoa i tēnei rā. He rā whakahirahira. Tēnā koutou katoa.
[Thank you, Madam Speaker. Seek the broad highway as a pathway to bind together the two peoples upon the one thought. Makau Ariki, greetings. To the King, Pōtatau Te Wherowhero VII, go and depart. To the living, Ngāti Maniapoto, Raukawa, Waikato-Tainui, it is appropriate indeed to acknowledge you today. It is a very special day. Greetings to you all.]
Today is one of those wonderous days for us in Parliament—for us as Māori, a Māori Affairs Committee, for all members who serve in this House—because we get to do something that’s right, to correct some of the challenges of our past, to apologise for the things that the Crown has done wrong, and most of all to make it right. Can I acknowledge each and every one of the whānau that are here today. Can I also acknowledge my friends from Te Wānanga o Aotearoa. Kei te mihi ki a koutou katoa.
The thing is, in part of that wonderous coming together today in the spirit of kotahitanga to support this kaupapa, this bill, Te Pire mō Ō-Rākau, Te Pae o Maumahara/Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill, it’s nice because it’s been a chequered 18 months together. I look around this House today and in this spirit I ask all of us that we continue that mahi to do what’s right to create better outcomes for Māori and for all of Aotearoa.
When I think about that and doing what’s right, I look to our rangatahi. I think about how this bill came upon us, ensuring that our stories are learnt, and it was our rangatahi who championed that. We’ve heard in this House today the petition that was put forward to enable those stories. Without that petition, I wonder if the Aotearoa New Zealand Curriculum would have been put in place—learning our history. Might be something that, collectively, we still would be aiming for, but it is what is right, because those stories matter. They matter to all of our whānau and the communities where we live.
I have a special hononga when we went back to Pārāwera. I remember my friend Anzac Pīkia today in this House—a good friend of mine. When I went back to that marae to hear your stories, he was very much there. I thought of him, his characteristics, his wonderful mātauranga, his wonderful sense of waiata, and whoever in this House may know of Anzac, you could hear him from a mile away. Because those stories ring true, whether they’re in our pūrākau, whether they are in our waiata, they must be used for education for everyone. I acknowledge him today along with the rest of the whānau.
I also acknowledge Matua Kaawhia, who hosted us on the day—tēnā koe e te Matua—who laid out for us the geography of the whenua that we were talking about. I learnt more from this demonstration than I learnt from the movie, because the stories are real. They come from a different place. They come from our whānau and they come from lived history. I acknowledge that. Tēnā rawa atu ki a koe. [I particularly acknowledge you.]
As I finish my contribution today in my five minutes, I want to acknowledge the 300 Māori that did have to fight for their lives during these wars: the women, the children, the absolute devastation upon this community, but, most of all the, loss of whenua. Today, we take one step to make things right. I commend this bill to the House. Tēnā tātou.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise and add my commendation to this bill, the Te Pire mō Ō-Rākau, Te Pae o Maumahara/Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill. Before I embark on my kōrero and contribution, I’d like to acknowledge the presence of our Kuīni Mother in the House. Welcome, and thank you to you and your whānau for the warm manaakitanga that you’ve always extended to me, a Lebanese person originally from Bankstown. I’d like to also say may Kiingi Tuheitia’s precious soul rest in peace, and may he guide the kaupapa that we embark on today from across the veil.
This bill will, essentially, as we’ve heard, give effect to a deed of agreement between the Crown and Maniapoto, Raukawa, and Waikato-Tainui iwi, and this deed of agreement will, essentially, place a piece of land that’s almost about 10 hectares in size under a title with the names of people long gone, but whose memory will live on even more fervently. They’ll become the owners because of the kaupapa of today. This piece of land that I refer to is the guardian to the eternal cries which have become the whispers, the whispers of courage, of sacrifice, and of the ultimate price to pay to defend one’s land and one’s family—and that’s death.
This piece of land was the first and the last to witness, as Minister Potaka said—and he said this in his first reading speech. He coined it as the Ō-Rākau 300—New Zealand’s own Spartan story—because the story that my colleague before me spoke about saw 300 iwi defenders protecting this piece of land and all that dwelt on it, against all odds, against about 1,500 British troops. Brave men and women from all over the motu formed this mahi of defence, and, as Kataraina Hodge said during our visit to Ō-Rākau last year, Ō-Rākau is a thread that connects iwi from across the land.
Who I’d also like to acknowledge when we discuss this bill—and so many have been acknowledged. I think that a lot of times with this type of kaupapa, a lot goes on behind the scenes, and sometimes these behind-the-scenes people aren’t necessarily always acknowledged, but I’d like to do so today. The first one is someone who has already been acknowledged—despite what I just said—Dr Robert Joseph.
Dr Robert, you have contributed so much with respect to the history of what happened at Ō-Rākau. You continue to contribute, and I know that the advisers and everyone involved in putting this together were able to lean on your deep knowledge, so thank you very much for what you’ve done and what you continue to do to bring this extremely important history to the forefront of our minds.
I’d like to acknowledge also, if I may, the presence and the guidance of Matua Kaawhia Te Muraahi. You were part of the initiation of the Battle of Ō-Rākau Heritage Society, and you’ve done so much as well as guide us down that historic path when we were there at that pā on that beautiful day last year.
I’d also like to acknowledge—as has been acknowledged before me—Chris Kay. He was the gentleman who, with his wife, purchased this site back in 2006, and then realised the importance of it, only to sell it to the Crown. With what you’ve done, you’ve allowed all of this to take place.
I pray that the history of this last battle is enshrined in all of our memories for many years to come and never fades away. Thank you.
Ngāti Raukawa, Ngāti Maniapoto, Waikato-Tainui, te Makau Ariki, te māmā, te Kuīni Māmā, pai tērā ingoa, e mihi ana. Pai tērā ingoa, mihi ana ki e koe, e te Whaea, koutou katoa i whakarangatira i a mātau i tēnei wā. He Hōnore nui ki te kōrero i tēnei wā, nō reira tēnā koutou, hara mai, hara mai, nau mai.
[Ngāti Raukawa, Ngāti Maniapoto, Waikato-Tainui, the Makau Ariki, the mother, the Queen Mother—that’s a good name, I acknowledge you. It’s a good name, and I acknowledge you, Aunty, all of you who have graced us here today. It is a great honour to speak at this time, therefore, greetings and welcome.]
I always find this type of kōrero hard, because you have to be nice, and Rawiri Waititi asked me not to be too nice today.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s another good day, remember.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, yes, yes. And I of course want to acknowledge the occasion and acknowledge the Ministers for their mahi, but there’s always a sense of frustration when you come to this point and all the good kōrero beforehand sort of ignores some of the kōrero that’s in front of us. Here we are settling this, and the Māori nation is sort of still under attack from certain groups in this Parliament, mainly the ACT Party. I find it hard to reconcile that. When we talk about how we must put the past behind us when the future’s not looking too good in terms of some of the plans and strategies for te ao Māori, it really does get on my nerves.
For instance, I was looking at the pūtea—you know, $1.7 million for the transfer of the Ō-Rākau site at no cost to iwi, $75,000 to fund the establishment of managing entity for the Ō-Rākau site, $306,000 to fund historical research. It’s chump change, really. Both Governments can take responsibility for that—I’m not just talking about National here. Both Governments can take some responsibility for that. When are we going to look at proper compensation for kaupapa like this? I’m not here to give Tama and Goldie over there a hard time; I’m here to say: when are we going to have a re-look at this situation where our people have to go through so much? Yes, they get the apology, and then they’re just about funding the whole thing themselves. Hōhā—hōhā.
One day I dream of a Crown that’ll say, “Well, actually, there’s $10 million. You don’t have to negotiate—you don’t have to negotiate.” I don’t know about Rawiri Waititi. We all watched him up there trying to sign up Māori Party members. He’s always up to something. You wonder why he wasn’t speaking today? Well, that’s because he was signing up members upstairs.
I dream of that day, I dream of a future where we actually celebrate the Treaty instead of attack the Treaty, as this party over here has been doing for the last few months, and our people are responding. Our people are responding. I’m so proud of our people at the moment—proud of our people. I say to our people who have come here, Ngāti Raukawa, Maniapoto, Tainui, me mihi ki a koutou, rawe ō koutou mahi. [We should acknowledge you; you have undertaken great work.]
No doubt about it. But there’s so much in front of us now, isn’t there? It’s great. This is fabulous but look at all the mahi that’s in front of us and the problems we have. We can whakakotahi for the kaupapa here, but let’s remember the challenges out there, particularly when we go down that track. It’s wonderful to talk about the 300 against 1,500, but right now we’ve got Māori who are feeling under threat and we’ve got 400,000 people who’ve been making submissions to a select committee.
Let’s not kid ourselves, people, in terms of where we are today. Let’s not kid ourselves that we as a Government put in history in schools. That’s a kaupapa that must stay. I see Vincent O’Malley in the audience here. Mihi ana ki a koe, e hoa. [I acknowledge you, friend.] We need people like yourself to push that type of kaupapa, because without that kaupapa, without an emphasis on kaupapa Māori, our history won’t get told. I mean, really, how many people in the country know about this kaupapa? We’re talking to the converted here. There’s got to be an investment and a pūtea put behind that kaupapa so all New Zealanders know about what happened there, the atrocities that happened there.
I’m worried. I’m worried about that type of kaupapa. I hear Cameron talking about names—so important to us, isn’t it? Names are everything to us. No doubt about that. There was a time when our kids were named Shane Jones and Willie Jackson, you know? That’s a fact. There’s a whole generation of Māori named along those lines, and then that changed with the kōhanga generation. Six weeks ago, when my seventh mokopuna was born, my boy gave our baby girl the name Ahumai, which of course has huge significance in terms of this kaupapa.
Names mean everything, but don’t just rattle on about Cameron and the bloody coloniser. Understand that for us, those names changed. We went from Shane Jones and Willie Jackson to Tama Potaka and Peeni Henare. That’s just a fact—that’s just a fact. And to Tuku Morgan up there. Our people changed because we politicised them, we put investment in them, and that investment, I say today, has to continue—has to continue.
That’s the challenge here today. This is a wonderful kaupapa to support and celebrate, but will we continue the support? Some of the iwi here are taking the Government to court, for goodness’ sake! “Thank you, thank you”, they said, and then they’re taking you to court the next day.
Let’s understand where te ao Māori is, and that is that we have to do the business and then we have to challenge and we have to continue doing things. There has to be a change, and the change has to come from the Government in terms of investment. I talked about the pūtea. There’s got to be a day, whether it’s National or Labour who are in, where we really understand the loss and stop giving crumbs to our people. Yes, we will take the crumbs. Yes, we will build. Tainui built, Ngāi Tahu built, off crumbs. Maybe one day the Government can show some aroha and generosity to our people.
I want to thank—and some of the names have been mentioned, but I do want to thank some of the people who’ve supported this kaupapa. From Ngāti Raukawa, I see Pakake up there, and Chris McKenzie. Ngā mihi ki a kōrua [I acknowledge you both] for your mahi in terms of what’s happened. Sometimes you get sidelined a bit by the sort of Tuku Morgans and whatnot who just love the TV and radio, but I want to say, mihi ana ki a koe, Tuku, [I acknowledge you, Tuku] for your work. Wonderful. You finally saw the light when you left the Māori Party. You did leave the Māori Party, didn’t you? I’m not sure, but I want to mihi to you and Tom Roa over there. Sadly, you heard old Shane Jones sounding fabulous today after they kicked you off the Tribunal, you know? “I just love you, Tom Roa, but see you later. Time for Richard Prebble.” You know this sort of nonsense, eh Tom? But I want to thank you, Tom, for your mahi.
To our Māori Queen, the Queen’s mother, lovely to see you here today. You whakamana our kaupapa here today. I was saying to Peeni, “What do you call the Queen’s mother?” He goes, “Auntie.” There you go. That’s your name there. Tika tana kōrero. [What he says is right.] Lovely to see you here today.
To Tumuaki, where is he? I saw him somewhere. Oh, good to see you there, chief. Come along and whakamana our kaupapa. We’ve got Kaawhia Muraahi here. He’s over there somewhere at the back there. Good to have you. I don’t want to miss anyone. I think I’ve got everybody.
Have I got everyone, Peeni? Have I missed anyone? I want to thank you all for your mahi in moving this kaupapa. It’s not easy. You’re not going to get paid anything. One or two of you might get paid, but I won’t get into that. But this is what it’s about, isn’t it? It’s about commitments. It’s about driving things forward. We’ve got a lot on our plates at the moment, you know? So thank you for that. We’ve got this Destiny lot going blinking nuts and all. Some of them are your relations, Tuku. You’ve got to do something about it. We’ve got them going blinking stupid in Auckland. We’ve got to work a strategy out. We can’t just say, “Oh, we love our gay community.” and do nothing to support them. They’re our whanaunga. They’re our family too, so bring that Brian Tamaki into Tainui and fix him up. Away you go.
I want to thank you all. Thank you for coming together for this kaupapa that is so important for all of us. I want to thank the other side, too, because it is a kaupapa that is meaningful, I know, to both these Ministers and former Ministers and it is a great day. Tēnā nō tātou katoa.
Te mutunga kē mai o te whānui o te kōrero. [What an expansive speech.]
I am the final speaker; this is my great honour. Nōku te māringanui kia tau ai te waka, te waka nei, nā reira, [It is my good fortune to land the canoe, this particular vessel. Therefore,] I will not speak for long because I am all that is standing between where we are now and this bill finally becoming legislation.
Kororia ki te Atua, maungarongo ki te whenua, whakaaro pai ki ngā tāngata katoa. Koinei ngā kupu i waiatatia e te ope o ngā anahera i te pō rā i whānau ai te tama o te Atua. Tērā kōrero, tērā harikoa, tērā oati i rongohia puta noa i ngā ao me ngā tau, ā, e pā ana tonu ki te ao i tēnei rā. Maungārongo ki te whenua, koirā ko tō tātau tino wawata, koirā te whāinga o tēnei pire i tēnei rā. Ka tīmata i te huarahi o te whakarauora, kāore anake ki te whenua tapu o Ō-Rākau, engari ki tō tātau whanaungatanga hoki. Nā reira, e mihi ana au ki ngā ahi e toru kua huihui mai i runga i tēnei rā. Nā rātau i kawe mai i a mātau ki tēnei wā. Maniapoto, Raukawa, Waikato, tēnā koutou i te whānui o tō koutou whakaaro nui, i te rahi o tō koutou manawanui, i te hōhonu o tō koutou aroha noa.
[Glory to God, peace on earth and goodwill to all people. These were the words sung by the host of angels on the night that the son of God was born. That statement, that joy, that promise has been heard throughout many worlds over many years, and still has relevance to the world today. Peace on earth, that is our great hope, that is the aim of this bill today. It starts the pathway to restoration, not just at the sacred land at Ō-Rākau, but in terms of our relationship as well. Thus, I acknowledge the three fires who have gathered here today. It is they who have carried us forth to this point. Maniapoto, Raukawa, Waikato, thank you for the breadth of your thoughtfulness, the length of your commitment, and the depth of your love.]
E te Māngai o te Whare, e rua wiki ki muri noa iho, i whakanuia e mātau te mana tangata ture o Taranaki Maunga. I tēnei rā, ka whakaturea te taitara o te whenua tapu o Ō-Rākau ki ngā tūpuna nā rātau i whakaritea he tapu tēnei whenua i runga i tō rātau toto. Just two weeks ago in this House, we acknowledged the legal personhood of Taranaki Maunga—it was an amazing day. Today, we vest the title of the sacred land of Ō-Rākau and those tūpuna whose blood has made the land sacred. While this House is all too often defined by its hōhā, by its mamae, this bill, this kōrero, is a moment defined by rangimārie, by āiotanga, by peace. Throughout the last year, as I have been privileged to be a part of this legislative process, that has been the overwhelming posture—te tino āhuatanga o ngā ahi e toru [the true nature of the three fires]—the desire to hohou i te rongo. [make peace.]
We heard it consistently in the submissions, from Craig Ahipene’s “You can’t hold on to anger for ever, it will eat you up.”, to Ainsleigh, who, as a psychologist, spoke about epigenetics, “The mamae passed between generations, and the ability”—she taught us—“of reconciliation to bring intergenerational healing, literal healing at the level of our bodily cells. Koirā te awenga o te tino maungārongo. [That is the power of true peace.]
There are two submissions, as I end, that I want to quote at length, for they spoke so fluently to this desire, and I believe that their kupu should land this waka. First of all, to Teaonui: I have listened to your submission so many times that I can hear your voice as I read these parts. “Ko tāku he ruirui i ētahi o ngā purapura o ngā uri o Ahumai rāua ko Matawaia tēnei te tū atu nei. Ko te taonga o taku ngākau, ko taku kuia, ko Tūmanako, nāna te aroha ki taku reo, ki taku ahurea i whakatō ki a mātau ko āku tēina.” [“My task is to sow some of the seeds of the descendants of Ahumai and Matawaia standing here. The treasure of my heart is my grandmother, Tumanako, who instilled the love of my language, of my culture, into me and my younger siblings.”]
Teaonui then spoke of the sacrifice that his nana had gone through and the beatings that she had received, and yet in spite of that pain, in spite of those scars, what she had passed to him and to his family. And then he carried on. He said, “This bill is a step towards our people reaching the ever-longing goal of ea: a craving for reciprocity, a yearning for peace, a desire to be free from the effects of 160 years of suffering, an end to the battle. My kuia always wore her scars—sometimes with pride, sometimes with shame—but all the time she taught me love, passion, pride, and humility. And when I learnt about my tūpuna who fought at Ō-Rākau, I saw them all in my nana.”
Teaonui then told us more about his tupuna Ahumai. “After the Battle of Ō-Rākau, a lone Pākehā soldier found himself wandering into our pā. He was restrained and a hui then ensued to decide what was to happen to this Pākehā. It was all but decided that he would be killed. How could an alternative resolution be reached after the multiple atrocities they had faced? Despite this, and despite her brother and father dying at Ō-Rākau, Ahumai wrapped her korowai around the soldier, ensuring that he be kept alive. Like my nana, Ahumai had scars. Despite this, she still saw the value of life and saw a way forward for her people. Recognising her in title won’t repair the severed ties that separate us, but it will begin the process of healing these deep scars that we hold.” Following the submission, Peeni Henare asked Teaonui to speak more to this concept of ea. Teaonui explained that it was for his children and their children that the process of healing begins now.
The final words must go to Kaawhia: Let us together give life to a legacy left in trust to this nation, a legacy of blood carved into the lands at Ō-Rākau, a legacy long denied, a legacy whose time has come. Let us establish te ara hohou rongo maungārongo ki Ō-Rākau—a transformational pathway toward an enduring hope, a pathway to healing, to peace, and to reconciliation.
Koirā te tūmanako hōhonu o te pire nei. Maungārongo ki te whenua. [That is the deep aspiration of this bill. Peace on earth.] Nā reira, I commend this bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
We now welcome you to share your waiata with us, please.
Waiata—“He Aha Kei Taku Uma”
Haka—“He Aha Raa”
Karanga
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Kia ora. Thank you.
Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill
Second Reading
🗣️ Spoke in this debate (26)
- Steve Abel
- Ginny Andersen
- Carl Bates
- Dan Bidois
- Hon Casey Costello
- Tākuta Ferris
- Greg Fleming
- Hon Paul Goldsmith
- Shanan Halbert
- Hon Peeni Henare
- Willie Jackson
- Shane Jones
- Dana Kirkpatrick
- Barbara Kuriger
- Cameron Luxton
- Hūhana Lyndon
- Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke
- Tracey McLellan
- Rima Nakhle
- Tama Potaka
- Maureen Pugh
- Adrian Rurawhe
- Tom Rutherford
- Helen White
- Arena Williams
- Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan