"\u003C!DOCTYPE html\u003E\u003Chtml xmlns:xlink=\u0022http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\u0022 xmlns:xsi=\u0022http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance\u0022 xmlns:mml=\u0022http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\u0022\u003E\n  \u003Chead\u003E\n    \u003CMETA http-equiv=\u0022Content-Type\u0022 content=\u0022text/html; charset=utf-16\u0022\u003E\n    \u003Cmeta name=\u0022viewport\u0022 content=\u0022width=device-width, initial-scale=1\u0022\u003E\n  \u003C/head\u003E\n  \u003Cbody style=\u0022font-family:sans-serif; font-size:100%;\u0022\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000000\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002210c1e0719cdc282e4c5efb23243faeea\u0022\u003ETuesday, 25 August 2026\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EThe Speaker\u003C/span\u003E took the Chair at 2 p.m.\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00228639d640e6200633cfabc779500eb28f\u0022\u003EStart of Sitting Day\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00222d46caf8d045a698499237ad6dca2e03\u0022\u003EKarakia/Prayers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022 data-id=\u00222aff00e5a7c80a975bf99979b64bb2ca\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222aff00e5a7c80a975bf99979b64bb2ca\u0022\u003EBARBARA KURIGER (Deputy Speaker) (14:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and the peace of New Zealand. Amen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c82d255a6dfb858a7686bbd7d22a3154\u0022\u003EPresentation\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022683fcce91240de71a664a5d3f4fd8ce3\u0022\u003EPetitions\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d28355a09a1b7beb54a6b36c3adadd60\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227f6c7d0afce02493379c71ae3f3093f9\u0022\u003ECLERK (14:01): \u003C/span\u003EPetition of Sam Troth requesting that the House ban evidence of previous good character from consideration when sentencing sexual offenders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c83f33d1e6b229ae12b3ee728379a5be\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e2bef4465fcb3d4a70b68d472e47c90c\u0022\u003EPapers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e6f70ea027d3c72b3ab89f57792e1414\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Ministers have delivered three papers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002266c478ccb2c933eea5a2676c8398d780\u0022\u003ECLERK (14:01): \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003E2026 annual report of Auckland Light Rail\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003E2026 statement of intent for the Climate Change Chief Executives Board\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003E2026 statement of performance expectations for National Infrastructure Funding and Financing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002277129e628327d0e2feb4e86c6de0e192\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Those papers are published under the authority of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002237d74793209aaae6ea60d76256dcb2bb\u0022\u003ESelect Committee Reports\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e49d1040a5211598f6bdf6464ecdeefa\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Eleven select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022384c3775f247f94303a0878659525d1f\u0022\u003ECLERK (14:01): \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003EReport of the Justice Committee on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Improving Alcohol Regulation) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003Ereports of the Petitions Committee on the:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003Epetition of Joshua Riley\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003Epetition of Russell Killgour\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003Epetition of Simon Kemp\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003Epetitions of Beatrice Salami and Viola Di Grado\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003Epetitions of Christopher Ingram, and the\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003Eten petitions of Murray Richard Tingey\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003Ereport of the Regulations Review Committee on the complaint about the Food (Fees, Charges, and Levies) Regulations 2015\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003Ereports of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003Ereport of the Controller and Auditor-General, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EReliability of public transport in Auckland\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003Ereport of the Ombudsman, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EOIA timeliness obligations: Compliance and practice in Transpower New Zealand Limited\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003Ereview briefing on the 2024/25 annual review of City Rail Link Limited.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c568d4be484ebb3f04d185eef31a24a2\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The bill is set down for second reading. The reports of the Regulations Review and Transport and Infrastructure Committees are set down for consideration.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ba1096c52fdc71ad8db305690dc3f903\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022528b4ba0719f3d0238f4f3542874b5e6\u0022\u003EOnline Safety (Minimum Age and Child Safety Risk Assessment) Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022528b4ba0719f3d0238f4f3542874b5e6\u0022\u003ELocal Government (Rates Capping) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022951bf8ce7247b93ff57edc4d3ca87463\u0022\u003EIntroduction\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a05d355dfd7ae0b48bd24c1884ddfc8b\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of two bills.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229c53261f67857245630c13cf4c178ab7\u0022\u003ECLERK (14:02): \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003EOnline Safety (Minimum Age and Child Safety Risk Assessment) Bill, introduction\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003ELocal Government (Rates Capping) Amendment Bill, introduction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cc5db577d3e35e9ff99a1cd464171815\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Those bills are set down for first reading.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b5634588f7502c312a4f65d66c9599a5\u0022\u003EOral Questions to Ministers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f1287bdf86ae3fd3d5e2c43dbbbbf574\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022da74b7d33fc521de508cc0f940ebcde0\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 1\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022 data-id=\u0022efb6ffae3f03bea00fc195e520949c22\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022efb6ffae3f03bea00fc195e520949c22\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (14:02)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by all his Government\u2019s statements and actions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022 data-id=\u0022b7d87b85cc57cd0bd708fed93446016b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b7d87b85cc57cd0bd708fed93446016b\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:03)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, and let me reassure the member: better starts now with no new taxes. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e709e929edc68ae7871f1cec37d6b25e\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Just give the House a moment. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002290c2884ffaf71851fa051f74978ff397\u0022\u003EHon Nicola Willis\u003C/span\u003E: Better late than never.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c921c0ddac5173105e213a968f83fbbb\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No one else needs to speak.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d6fbb66ef58087b357ff9a203afc8d84\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: Better start releasing some policy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b201e25ab8a9053c28a60f5a93ac6867\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No one else needs to speak.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002217e5d6bd4d38a2bc68064535e3967b97\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Why are there 49,000 more New Zealanders out of work today than when he promised to get the country back on track three years ago?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d7caaa9bfb06819891aadc50b9ec5e0e\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, because a previous Government increased spending by 70\u00A0percent; that drove up inflation to a 32-year high to 7.3\u00A0percent. What that led to was multiple interest rate rises\u2014I think about 13\u2014that slowed an economy down and people lost their jobs. That\u2019s why this Government has been working so hard. I can just say very simply to the member that if he wants to help, imposing more taxes on hard-working New Zealanders is not the way forward.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228c5705affbadecbc9e2c4cb1027e61e2\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Why should the 20,000 construction workers who have lost their jobs under his leadership believe the economy has turned a corner when the first thing his Government did was cancel the projects many of them were working on, leaving many of those very same construction workers with no choice but to leave the country to search for work they should be able to find here?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e455fd745e43e24faf83835eaf20ec63\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, I wouldn\u2019t call Let\u2019s Get Wellington Moving, Auckland Light Rail, and three waters projects that were happening under his previous administration\u2014they were not happening. But the member will be pleased to know that actually construction jobs, according to SEEK, are up 35\u00A0percent\u2014the fastest growing industry for job ads\u2014and that\u2019s a positive thing. We\u2019re getting things built in this country; not just talking about it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cc48e06093a3ca8f7a90d3c8bc538b93\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: Supplementary question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002285b8543fdcff70a181f9f3d98272bd60\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, the Hon Chris Bishop.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022746d3fe7146f0a2b51391b19cf2bee28\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: No, supplementary question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224e5353b2773d1b0128750f02b3711d4a\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, a supplementary question? Well, you wait until we\u2019ve had three from over here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022719074878dd8dd564016141dd42a1864\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: When he said \u201Cthe economy is on the rise\u201D, was he referring to rising unemployment, rising inflation, rising company liquidations, or the rising price of household bills?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ad23918d0f683ae0b3da09d762e8ee40\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, let me help the member. We\u2019ve had 2.1\u00A0percent growth in the last nine months. We\u2019ve got strengthening growth forecasts from the Treasury, the Reserve Bank (RBNZ) economists, and Standard \u0026amp; Poor\u2019s. We\u2019ve got manufacturing growth at the highest it\u2019s been since 2021, and it\u2019s outperforming many other countries. Services are expanding, which is fantastic. We\u2019ve had record exports, up 25 percent. We\u2019ve got $12 billion in exports alone in the last two years. We\u2019ve got tourism visitors up by 8 percent and a trade surplus for the first time in five years. Wholesale electricity prices are down by 35 percent. Building consents are up by 19 percent, the highest since 2023. Construction jobs I\u2019ve talked about; consumer confidence, business confidence, farmer confidence, and retail and investor confidence. We\u2019ve got the lowest rent increases in 25 years; stable house prices; and record first-home buyers. The official cash rate is remaining low at 2.5 percent, down from 5.5 percent; there is $7,500 for the average mortgage-holder, back in their back pocket; and the great news is that the number of Kiwis returning home from Australia is up 14 percent in the last 12 months.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002211e605217ed1b1ed174ff8736b7315f1\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: And can I just say that no one speaks while the question is being answered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e63e5dc8003430cc3490a8e7bcdbad92\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Has the New Zealand economy grown faster or slower over the last three years than was forecast before his Government took office?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de1a01719d32349e4c9d6fb16637328e\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: I can tell the member, as I\u2019ve said before, that the economy grew 2.1 percent in the last nine months, but I want to tell the member that instituting a capital gains tax\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c06d26dd942ff896cefd110e1aab146a\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, no.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220f4a5cf64006c9bb119aa7ba6aa1eb7d\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014a digital services tax\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227f561bb74c048417bba1f2f3071bc96e\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, no, that\u2019s enough.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002285bac52b69eec27d486677baa203cd01\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014a business tax\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022307554a163cba415eb3f81511da68862\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Prime Minister, that\u2019s enough.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002286c4fbf39ba7a52b8fd36e49474e4c91\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a pretty straightforward question. The Prime Minister has been touting his Government\u2019s successes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223b8c488e2ec697fb964beaf56cf0f111\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, it was.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225c57fcde575410aa5652686401413341\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Has the economy grown faster or slower\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ef56cac5b8a57012ce733dc727ae5b57\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, good\u2014we got that out, so\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224710683deb382ac1d6782d412336db62\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014over the last three years than it was forecast to before he became Prime Minister?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002221070a84e2146b9e51025c15c4ed5a7b\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The Prime Minister can address the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002225cf2f0f2a3975ebfd0f01e718f18bb6\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: What I can say to the member is the economy has grown 2.1 percent in the last nine months, and isn\u2019t it fantastic to see Standard\u00A0\u0026amp;\u00A0Poor\u2019s, the RBNZ, and Treasury all expecting the economy to grow faster than the current forecasts that are on the table.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223abc88148a1a9427cf3d6336424f4df5\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Is Government debt today higher or lower than it was forecast to be at this point before his Government took office?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022da84d7c980ad8de789c123d5ccae0e78\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, there\u2019s a sad tale there, where we had a previous Government that cranked up spending from $60 billion to $180 billion. We spent $10 billion on the interest bill, which is four Dunedin Hospitals that we don\u2019t get to build because we\u2019re cleaning up your mess.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002241111545bca0cb889ad0578ae5d8740e\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, it was a pretty straightforward question. The Prime Minister keeps going on about his Government\u2019s track record. This question was very straightforward: is Government debt today higher or lower than it was forecast to be before the election?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e738d70718a469fbcb321f142a5dcce2\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll ask the Prime Minister to make a further comment, but you can\u2019t expect there not to be any commentary about how a situation may arise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223624c8f01bf5d30e6604fd80049ae698\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: There\u2019s been a range of forecasts in my 2\u00BD\u00A0years as Prime Minister. What I know is I\u2019m focused on making sure we grow this economy faster; that\u2019s what we\u2019re doing. Frankly, cranking up spending another $4.5\u00A0billion a year and asking for Kiwis to pay for that in more tax and more debt isn\u2019t the way forward.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002223eb39ad9e0aeea2f09478c545a40ae4\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: If the New Zealand economy is back on track and the Government books are back in order, why has the $2 billion surplus that was forecast for the next financial year, before he became Prime Minister, turned into a $14 billion deficit?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bbd46c53f23363ec8cd6cb76156a5cc0\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, on this side of the House, we are a Government that has financial responsibility. That\u2019s why we have got Government spending under control, that\u2019s why inflation has come down, that is why interest rates are coming down, and that\u2019s why we have $7,500 in the back pockets of average mortgage-holders. Spend more, tax more, borrow more is what got us into this mess, and that\u2019s what you did.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022da3ef803e45eb17bbbefc8ee3a71737c\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Does he think his credibility on \u201Cspend more, tax more, borrow more\u201D would be a little more credible if his Government hadn\u2019t done exactly that for the last three years?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022408f494cf05cfece48f15670c2a4d071\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: We cut taxes for the first time in 14 years\u2014that party didn\u2019t support it\u2014for working New Zealanders, and their union mates didn\u2019t even support it, either. He wants to put in a capital gains tax in New Zealand. What do you think that will do to the economy? What do you think a digital services tax or a business tax will do, or a streaming tax or a ute tax? Where are you on interest deductibility?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022165ac957d7db615d450a6eec3a82fb85\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Question No. 2, Rawiri Waititi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ba7192613a0edd3e10a91e3b3768532c\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003EYou need to get started.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0e2403c87194ab09a0bd954cda7ab12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222c3e5287f10f1ffad5441f030e469bac\u0022\u003ERawiri Waititi\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d00c2b90c19b6e4109ad44f89781070b\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Hang on, no one else is going to be speaking while people are asking questions, regardless of how important they think what they\u2019re offering the House is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022cefae8c1e0f2775ebb51cc3924a4ea56\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002216726f83c96783d9284f74a26549acc6\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e0e2403c87194ab09a0bd954cda7ab12\u0022 data-id=\u00221e85843cf5e317208b45a2f90ebc3eb9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0e2403c87194ab09a0bd954cda7ab12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221e85843cf5e317208b45a2f90ebc3eb9\u0022\u003ERAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader\u2014Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori) (14:09)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by all his Government\u2019s statements and actions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022 data-id=\u00226aac49f975960738c73d741346ef5913\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226aac49f975960738c73d741346ef5913\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:09)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, and particularly our desire not to introduce an asset tax.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0e2403c87194ab09a0bd954cda7ab12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d87a6f54708d0039f22ec737568a5931\u0022\u003ERawiri Waititi\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you for that. Does he stand by his Government\u2019s track record of legislating over court decisions to entrench the theft of the foreshore and seabed through the marine and coastal area amendment Act, and to choose corporate interest over the wellbeing of our taiao and our people through the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222c60e58bdf363e8cff4da6c6cae18eca\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: I reject the characterisation of the second leg of that question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0e2403c87194ab09a0bd954cda7ab12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002243022869d70ed3d0ecc2ec45c3251268\u0022\u003ERawiri Waititi\u003C/span\u003E: Does he agree that tikanga is the first law of Aotearoa, as recognised by the courts, and, if so, will he ensure our people that so long as he\u2019s Prime Minister he will not legislate over the application of tikanga in our judicial system?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d62dccf7f88d561a1f44517b40d8ab60\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, what M\u0101ori can be assured of across New Zealand is this is a Government that is interested in improving M\u0101ori outcomes, and when we see M\u0101ori youth offending down 28 percent, we see 4,000 fewer M\u0101ori victims of violent crime, when we see immunisation rates for under-24 young M\u0101ori up from 60 to 71.5 percent, this is a Government that\u2019s delivering for M\u0101ori and it\u2019s improving outcomes for M\u0101ori.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0e2403c87194ab09a0bd954cda7ab12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223d86aa2276a77a9feb84f32c0656843b\u0022\u003ERawiri Waititi\u003C/span\u003E: Can he rule out revisiting the Treaty principles bill or any legislation that aims to achieve the same goals as the Treaty principles bill, under any Government he leads?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022919e0a011aac1278cd037ff9abd84ad9\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, what I can rule out is a capital gains tax, a rentals tax, and a wealth and asset tax.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002219c0fcc00377623a6dda1639002a4d9d\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Prime Minister aware that tikanga varies iwi by iwi by iwi by iwi, so which one did Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori recommend we follow?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c43c08726bd01f314f2a4be6fa29705f\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the Prime Minister can\u2019t answer for Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori. Is there\u2014question No. 3\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a8b6f3347749da1245b2b2699f63b16f\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. I said: \u201CWhich one did Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori recommend to him that they follow?\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227c38b5b9bacdd2148ddef63bf60b9ca0\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I thought\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fc758dead7561642db7b36aa0d50e2f2\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: No, no, no you don\u2019t.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002279016d8b008dab99ff9ee0bc6e0c01d8\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No wait on, I thought\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224464ed599d5d7bbc1c6e54201cdeffd2\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Follow the question very carefully.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a53464f3ada0c032503a02518285b181\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Don\u2019t argue; it\u2019s not a safe thing to do. I thought the question was \u201CWhich one did he recommend?\u201D, so that would be something he can\u2019t do. If the Prime Minister wants to make a comment on that; if the Prime Minister\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022738319c2b5db675ca72e13c50231f1e9\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: No, no. Point of order. The question wasn\u2019t that\u2014I know what you thought. I know what you thought; I\u2019m about to correct you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c9b672a49e067b8e39a9aa7f15b70fbd\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: What is this? You wouldn\u2019t stand for this from anyone else.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226c0291f2a5d51f715ae1dc7fc8fa988e\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I said, \u201CWhich one did they recommend that the Prime Minister follow?\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fbc864e6d8732d0e88d8eed608094b04\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, don\u2019t\u2014listen, hang on a minute.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225dda503f5e5347db8fd2aad23e6f9136\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003EAny tikanga.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224ed11ab966b1bb2be83e8a6d5f1d6856\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Drop that sort of comment\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228017535276de242842b84d260c2f80c5\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, any tikanga, how\u2019s that, eh?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002230f081e0f9c1fac6571d05bc62e0bba9\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014or it\u2019s an early afternoon.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225543b218f9b96480291f320aa3c0b7ff\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: So 45 different court decisions, now?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224c1bb547ce361d169a5573e1c454faf5\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: You make the choice. Sit down.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225d434766ccfa29fd4dff76d918c19f10\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, certainly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bc1751a00838324e0a05da76d70edf01\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Right, now that\u2019s the end of that. We\u2019re moving on to question No. 3.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022fec8be2f6c9ee24bc8a16c03231d44a9\u0022\u003EFinance\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002278b196ecd4ab3ec126a22393e79f76ab\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 3\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b52eff5aa2a94fcc88903b73d0443de3\u0022 data-id=\u0022316e38df262595d1491ef3cdd09f8f60\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b52eff5aa2a94fcc88903b73d0443de3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022316e38df262595d1491ef3cdd09f8f60\u0022\u003ENANCY LU (National) (14:12)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Finance\u003C/span\u003E: What is the Government\u2019s fiscal strategy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022 data-id=\u002274d29864767aaa02bc1b89d6ee54a824\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002274d29864767aaa02bc1b89d6ee54a824\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:12)\u003C/span\u003E: The Government\u2019s fiscal strategy aims to repair the books after a period of deficits and rapidly growing debt. The key elements of the strategy are to reduce core Crown expenses towards 30 percent of GDP; to return the Government\u2019s headline operating balance measure, OBEGALx\u2014Operating Balance Before Gains and Losses, excluding ACC revenue and expenses\u2014to surplus by the 2028/2029 fiscal year; and to put net core Crown debt as a percentage of GDP on a downward path towards 40 percent. Budget forecasts show the strategy is on track. Core Crown expenses, for example, are forecast to decline from 32.6 percent of GDP this year to 30.3 percent of GDP at the end of the forecast period in 2029-30.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b52eff5aa2a94fcc88903b73d0443de3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002221eda1c8153eae5cbe346be6e209bf04\u0022\u003ENancy Lu\u003C/span\u003E: Should the Government increase spending to boost the economy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d749240c968d8f42a5c29eba93030a13\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, no. For starters, it\u2019s worth pointing out that we are already in deficit. It is true that if the Government borrowed more to spend more, it would give the economy a short-term boost, but that is just a sugar hit. There is no impact on medium-term growth; the money borrowed gets added to debt, and the Reserve Bank would likely respond with slightly higher interest rates than would otherwise be the case. Sustainable growth comes from structural changes that raise potential GDP, such as increasing capital intensity, as the Investment Boost tax policy seeks to do. Sustainable growth does not come simply from spending more.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b52eff5aa2a94fcc88903b73d0443de3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c13e6d5aee6db46b8be378ed09500365\u0022\u003ENancy Lu\u003C/span\u003E: Has the Government considered raising core Crown expenses to 33\u00A0percent of GDP?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022006aca2d5d103d35ad422d1c525dc5a3\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: No. Thirty-three percent of GDP would be very high for core Crown expenses. The Treasury\u2019s core Crown expenses series goes back to 1993-94 and has only been at 33 percent or above on six occasions, including around the time of the global financial crisis and COVID-19 pandemic. The average for core Crown expenses over the past 25 years\u2014through, of course, both blue Governments and red Governments\u2014is only 30.7 percent. Thirty-three percent would therefore be a very significant increase in spending and it is definitely not something the Government is considering.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b52eff5aa2a94fcc88903b73d0443de3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cf420d6507872337f942ff8ea7352eae\u0022\u003ENancy Lu\u003C/span\u003E: How is additional Government spending funded?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224e9d69e39c351bef5733236faadad333\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: If the Government wants to spend more, it either has to tax people more or borrow more. For example, to raise core Crown revenue to 33 percent, to match a similar increase in expenses, the Government would have to increase taxes by $10.4\u00A0billion in the 2030-31 fiscal year. To put that in perspective, colleagues, $10.4\u00A0billion is $5,400 of extra tax for every household in New Zealand; put another way, $103 more tax per household every week.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022df54d31d442f3c79a47cda8812916e82\u0022\u003EFinance\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00226c653bb01f83e385ddff10903e2225c8\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 4\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022 data-id=\u002231dfd767ce37df9a1f75f8fb33ead18a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002231dfd767ce37df9a1f75f8fb33ead18a\u0022\u003EHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour\u2014Mana) (14:15)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Finance\u003C/span\u003E: Fa\u2019afetai tele lava, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by all her statements and actions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022 data-id=\u00228e040a35fada116ff5d06c8d11c48481\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228e040a35fada116ff5d06c8d11c48481\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:15)\u003C/span\u003E: In context, yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002292007d9eeadd27916004f7de1d9909d8\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: Has she kept her promise that her Government would \u201Creduce food prices for Kiwis\u201D, when the price of white bread is up over 72 percent since she came to office?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b82ff28f6cd3cae34e93c663602fe901\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I can say that this Government has achieved lower rates of food price inflation than was the case under the last three years of the last Labour-led Government, in which food price inflation soared over 12 percent per year. Currently, food inflation is easing. Food prices rose just 0.1 percent in July, with annual food inflation now 1.9 percent, which is obviously a lot lower than the 12 percent food inflation that her mates managed to achieve.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226baefbe2c77499654685eab328fb72fc\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: Has she kept her promise that the Government would lower grocery prices, when the price of beef mince is up more than 33 percent since she came to office?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ea2ca0b1b86d652d695046003779a06a\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, as I said, food price inflation is lower on our watch than it was under the last Government. I think it is worth acknowledging that global beef prices are determined in a global market in which New Zealand participates. If that member\u2019s policy is that she wishes to lower the returns farmers get for red meat, I would also indicate to her that that would have significant implications for jobs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a20cca4817135995a4fba658ceebd36f\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: So are butter prices higher or lower since she came into office?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222391329ff248d1c2a672486853a79a4f\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, as I said, food price inflation has eased during the time of our Government, which is to say simply that food prices are not increasing as fast as they once were. When it comes to butter, I think it\u2019s worth pointing out that New Zealand is one of the biggest exporters of butter in the world, and higher returns for dairy have injected billions of dollars into the economy in recent years, which has supported jobs on farms. I am always on the side of shoppers who wish to see affordable butter, but if the member\u2019s solution is that she wants to see dairy farmers getting lower prices, she should spell that out to the public.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223eb7b103e6e89b765b52b4b776542aec\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: Supplementary\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f0540c06eaddc7c5d540cf62577e31ff\u0022\u003EHon Dr Megan Woods\u003C/span\u003E: Is that like when you called Fonterra in?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e98f1d44188e99580156c144ccaf5045\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m sorry, have you got a question?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f748c8ffd59d0ab347b7be0536022c52\u0022\u003EHon Dr Megan Woods\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226503da8ea727460ca92c7ee659ed228d\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Then please don\u2019t interfere with someone asking from your own side.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d86d39d428502c71a51deaec71656339\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: Why does she continue to claim that she will \u201Creduce food prices for Kiwis\u201D, when the price of cheese is up 28 percent; lamb chops, 31 percent; mince, 33 percent; milk, 33 percent; white bread, 72 percent; and butter, 88 percent on her watch alone?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a84bc3d05fcc51297a864e9454b87f2a\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, because week in, week out, this Government is doing what it can to control the costs that lead to excessive food price inflation. For example, last week, we made an announcement intervening on the Horizons Plan Change 2. The result that was described to me in a text message I received from a vegetable grower was this: \u201CIt will see growers held to account to demonstrate good practice and reduce the environmental impact, but it\u2019s practical, workable, and achievable. Congratulations on doing what no other regional or central government of the past has done: listen to growers on the ground and implement workable solutions. We couldn\u2019t have done it without your help to open doors for us along the way with what you\u2019ve done to help keep New Zealand growing healthy food, stay accessible, and reasonably priced for everyone.\u201D Red tape matters and our Government has been reducing it, and that means that vegetable prices will be lower than they otherwise would be.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00229e5ccb300ebf2cc118780de19ffc8498\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00223aa283a1ed3c56f9bad85bb182ff4723\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 5\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022 data-id=\u0022a41d10fe31034fb92d1ce576fd38656b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a41d10fe31034fb92d1ce576fd38656b\u0022\u003EHon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader\u2014Green) (14:19)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\u003E: E tautoko ana ia i ng\u0101 k\u014Drero me ng\u0101 mahi katoa a t\u014Dna K\u0101wanatanga?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003E[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EDoes he stand by all of his Government\u2019s statements and actions?\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022 data-id=\u0022db51758fca68df09c821cfd723f5e688\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022db51758fca68df09c821cfd723f5e688\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:20)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, and I can assure the member that we won\u2019t be implementing a death tax or a gift tax.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226c2e6b32b88ede9542cfb2a5a0ed1755\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Does he agree that Treaty\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224f8eebba23eca71b0d0197e38d267086\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Just a moment\u2014just a moment. How many times do I warn people on the front bench of the National Party\u2014don\u2019t speak while a question is being asked? That applies to people on this side of the House, too\u2014not to mention any particular names.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022856fd98c413f6056ae60cdf6ad3a0722\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Does he agree that Treaty settlements create binding obligations on the Crown, or can those obligations be set aside when they become politically inconvenient?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229010f6033a75f118393cdde70114b647\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: This Government believes in upholding its Treaty obligations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002221eec973fea578002a4d908b2aeff784\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Was the decision to halt Plan Change 1 simply for the purpose of allowing continued pollution and degradation of the Waikato River for short-term private profit\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cc686dcd303778b5f4842237cbcd659e\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, God, what a stupid question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223c821e49e0afcb63ffaeaacc2197830d\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014despite water quality being one of the region\u2019s most significant\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022153a2d2c61d4496c4e547900fffb7805\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Who the hell wrote this question?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002296c3f46dd486e0c52624f0c194490d9b\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker, I\u2019ve got chitter-chatter\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002291f170d6a3b9e65150194951131c527c\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: You can start that question again, and I\u2019ll keep an eye on where the noise is coming from, because mumbling under your breath doesn\u2019t save you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e6e6b489fe63ea1445f701ce74d3343a\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Was the decision to halt Plan Change 1 simply for the purpose of allowing continued pollution and degradation of the Waikato River for short-term private profit, despite water quality being one of the region\u2019s most significant environmental concerns?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a305042f9a52604a550b8fc33471b3bb\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022988f03b91d47159aec97e332bddc163f\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Why is it acceptable to overrule a decision that has been supported by the Environment Court and been through a 14-year collaborative process between iwi, farmers and growers, councils, industry, and environmental and community groups?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bb87f23c30d2a85eb11e88813c15575f\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Because we\u2019re changing our planning laws. We\u2019re moving from an old system to a new system, and it\u2019s important that things are done in the context of the new rules.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ccc54a439d309d352a05568bbec62784\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Is his decision to halt the planned improvements to the health of the Waikato River a sign of intent for the resource management reform his Government is pushing through this week, which places short-term private profits over the health of our environment every single time?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222d330ca2d480170e55f4b63fdc95b8d1\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. Mr Speaker, did you hear the end of that question?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228dc6df8a9cd1c9229b583685dbd7f4bb\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I did, and I was about to interject on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fa72518921aa4c514ac9ee8f312c3c2c\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225f1e7cce0223724257e4a29973af9729\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member can ask the question without the supposition added on to the end of it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022703b66e3667caa03a882779681114a1a\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Is his decision to halt the planned improvements to the health of the Waikato River a sign of intent for the resource management reform his Government is pushing through this week?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220595318aa75ab7b187c8f0c440f23d3c\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221d3d65be3a371891249c3194a50c1158\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the draft Amendment Paper to the Natural Environment Bill currently before the House specifically says that existing Plan Change 1 will be the basis for the new plan once the environment system changes?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a11b2dacf439b29d91bf5b5cec4a04da\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b4e6a06b040ff65e3b55f9c960016ee0\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Does he believe that he knows better than the Environment Court and the Waikato River Authority about the state of the Waikato River, or does he simply not care and, as the chair of the river authority has said, is he willing to \u201Cpass the buck to the next generation\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220454c5b6d96e31c345e759cc14e74dac\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: No. One of the biggest things holding this country back has been our Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms\u2014our RMA laws\u2014that\u2019s why we\u2019re reforming it, and that\u2019s exactly what we\u2019re doing. We\u2019re doing it because we\u2019ve got to get planning and consenting things done and to build in this place\u2014more roads, more wind farms, more farms, more supermarkets, more renovations, more houses, more hospitals. That\u2019s a good thing. You cannot have an RMA reform\u2014an RMA programme\u2014costing us $1.3 billion. Costs are up 70 percent; actual time taken to get consents is up 150 percent. We\u2019re changing it\u2014we are changing it\u2014because we\u2019re going to get things done and built in this country, and we\u2019re going to grow our economy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b951539338ede61af2094be50641271f\u0022\u003EHousing\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00223aefd07c6e36ec56162910525988da11\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 6\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022297bc572c27f45308dffb067ca3e7915\u0022 data-id=\u0022f3ea937db6e815e22d603f1fece9f26e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022297bc572c27f45308dffb067ca3e7915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f3ea937db6e815e22d603f1fece9f26e\u0022\u003EDr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National\u2014Ilam) (14:24)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Housing\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Government considering removing interest deductibility for residential property?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00228d6c1bca0b0b6ea0a12d51fab49fd5b9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228d6c1bca0b0b6ea0a12d51fab49fd5b9\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) (14:24)\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022297bc572c27f45308dffb067ca3e7915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e9305948a611798837242f9c5aca866f\u0022\u003EDr Hamish Campbell\u003C/span\u003E: Why does the Government support interest deductibility?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228a034fb6b9292afad07321264f17444c\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: There are many reasons\u2014two the House might be interested in. On this side of the House, we believe in the eminently reasonable and best-practice tax principle that tax is paid on profit, not revenue. The Government does not tax small trade business on gross sales while ignoring the cost of wages, materials, tools, and fuel. Removing interest deductibility for residential property breaks this principle, and it means that the mum and dad investor, or someone who rents their home out, could have to pay tax on their property even if it\u2019s making a loss. Secondly, removing interest deductibility raises costs for people who provide rentals, which, according to the experts, are likely to be passed on to renters. One might even call it a tenant tax.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022297bc572c27f45308dffb067ca3e7915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b6ef068274af56e15a40a4884b08976d\u0022\u003EDr Hamish Campbell\u003C/span\u003E: Who would pay if the Government removed interest deductibility on residential property?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d1f68d8bad51bcd116f1f1b287745477\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: In general, people who provide rentals will pay. Some of those increased costs are likely to be passed on to renters\u2014that is what IRD warned about back in 2021. Removing interest deductibility could also incentivise or force people who provide rental properties to sell, which, of course, affects renters as well. You cannot increase costs for landlords at no cost or consequence to renters. All these costs have an effect and a consequence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022297bc572c27f45308dffb067ca3e7915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022686b8f72823b1b85302eb6ebdf1e2db1\u0022\u003EDr Hamish Campbell\u003C/span\u003E: What reports has he seen on interest deductibility for residential property?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e112c5b4534aa17face5211033754fef\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve seen many reports. One thing I have been reading at night is IRD\u2019s 2021 and 2023 regulatory impact statements (RIS). From the 2021 RIS: \u201C[IRD] has advised against any of these options to deny or limit interest deductions \u2026 additional taxes on rental housing are unlikely to be an effective way of boosting overall housing affordability. \u2026 [This would] put upward pressure on rents and may reduce the supply of new housing developments in the longer-term.\u201D and could have \u201Cnegative impacts on rents and housing supply, high compliance and administration costs for an estimated 250,000 taxpayers, and [would erode] the coherence of the tax system.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dd40824fe2bad4943bcc9c2434fc76f9\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: Has the Minister seen any other recent admissions that taxes on a particular activity can be passed on to consumers?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022751e39425cca776d5d7d4993eb949d24\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, there is no shortage of proposals in this House, mainly on the other side\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224e0ba141d8ca3b4d04baa6f180b5f3bf\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, that\u2019s enough\u2014that\u2019s enough.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022abf4928a5b4395dbafd8215c17535ed3\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003EAw!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b7d2a83044c7ef67365266822f45ff63\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I\u2019d be upset about that, but I suspect if you tabled the document you claim you\u2019ve been reading every night, you\u2019d have found the cure for insomnia.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00229da9229e4f0bc9f062aa338747351d93\u0022\u003EHealth\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e9b303c2a323e59e5e982f67d3ef5e86\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 7\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022 data-id=\u0022b492234efc933a65f921ebb78422bce5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b492234efc933a65f921ebb78422bce5\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (14:27)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Health\u003C/span\u003E: Is it correct that the net change in nursing FTE is a more accurate measure of workforce growth than hiring statistics, and why is the net increase in Health New Zealand\u2019s nursing FTE between the quarters ending March 2024 to March 2026 only 54 nurses?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u00223aa7b46056fe69b17fb4e3da093ba77a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223aa7b46056fe69b17fb4e3da093ba77a\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:27)\u003C/span\u003E: In response to the first part of the member\u2019s question, yes, it is correct that the net change in nursing full-time equivalents (FTEs) is an accurate measure of workforce growth. That is why just last week in the House I referenced the 2,162 additional nurses on a net basis employed by Health New Zealand since 2023, which equates to a net increase of 1,640 full-time equivalents. In response to the second part of the member\u2019s question, I\u2019m advised that in a workforce the size of Health New Zealand, people are joining and leaving all of the time for a range of reasons. What\u2019s important is that we have grown the number of nurses working at Health New Zealand by more than 1,600 FTEs, and that as at 14 August there were 2,378 fulltime-equivalent nursing roles actively being recruited across Health New Zealand, including 475 nurses who have accepted offers, with thousands more progressing through recruitment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aed8d712a94d61874fca94e3930a1a54\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: When Middlemore Hospital has lost the equivalent of 78 full-time nurses in the past two years, are his cuts the reasons paramedics are forced to treat patients in hospital corridors?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002294e1a5973a589ab170a8fad8d37fa6a2\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: As I said in the answer to the primary question, there has been significant growth in full-time equivalents since we came to office. There is clearly more work to do, and that is why Health New Zealand is actively recruiting, as at 14 August, for 2,378 fulltime-equivalent nursing roles\u2014by Health New Zealand\u2014including 475 nurses who have already accepted offers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022591365f01405f58fe619c55c56561b9a\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: When Auckland hospital nurses have been cut by 74 full-time equivalents over the last two years, is it any surprise the emergency department breached its capacity on a third of all days last year?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221d66cdd8b0137b44e2dfee752f1cc1a6\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: As I said in the answer to the primary question, since we came to Government, Health New Zealand has increased the number of nurses by more than 1,600 FTE roles. As at 14 August, there were 2,378 fulltime-equivalent nursing roles actively being recruited across Health New Zealand, including 475 nurses who have accepted offers. It\u2019s also important to note that the number of vacancies has reduced, from 2,632 to 1,600 FTE, the turnover rate\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002216a1f008a8f26d33a18ab1b9aef0a75f\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. We\u2019re all sitting here while the Minister has, despite answering on the question of net nursing growth, repeated points about recruitment numbers which are totally unrelated. He is now introducing another matter, and under Speakers\u2019 ruling 206/4, this is totally unrelated to the issue, which is the total number of nurses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e09dcac30c9484e2caaea909fd25ced0\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I think it\u2019s very hard to argue that, given that the Minister is talking about vacancies and hiring, as I heard it. It\u2019s hard to say that\u2019s not related to the question. Please, take an extra supplementary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ed6ab3369424029aec3cd420605148ce\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: When Waikato Hospital nursing staff has been cut over the last two years, by 53 full-time equivalents, why is he continuing to claim he hasn\u2019t cut services?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b3e433ddf743b59c989b18e2534228c8\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: As I said in the answer to the primary question, the number of fulltime-equivalent nurses working at Health New Zealand has increased by more than 1,600 full-time equivalents across New Zealand. We are hiring across the country, as at 14 August, currently recruiting for 2,378 fulltime-equivalent nursing roles, including 475 nurses who have accepted offers. There is clearly more work to do, but as I said, we have reduced the number of vacancies from 2,632 full-time equivalents to 1,601. The turnover rate has reduced from 11.7 percent to 8.4 percent, which means our retention rate is improving. The vacancy rate has reduced from 8.6 percent to 5.2 percent. There\u2019s more work to do, but there is a lot of recruitment under way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f63ee464df940fc2d9b4ca03c69255f3\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: Why does he cite gross figures rather than net for the three months at the beginning of the Government\u2019s term, when they hadn\u2019t put in the hiring freeze, in order to disguise the fact that for the last two years, they have essentially not hired any additional nurses?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002242b2c4a83be3bb60f448159ac80108b2\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: I reject the premise of that question, and if I wish to choose two different dates\u2014as the member seeks to do\u2014I\u2019ll refer to March 2023, when the number of doctors at Health New Zealand was 10,093; and September 2023, when it had fallen to 9,962. Under her watch, the number of doctors reduced by around a hundred.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002288978fb9592a4911a8e47eae04d164f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d3906e2bf3e2fc6b2a7e97bc598e4685\u0022\u003EDr Vanessa Weenink\u003C/span\u003E: What is the net change in the number of fulltime-equivalent doctors employed by Health New Zealand between quarters ending March 2024 to March 2026?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224c6caae11993545d4aab74a36f796a30\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m advised that Health New Zealand employed an additional 502 fulltime-equivalent doctors on a net basis between March 2024 and March 2026. Between September 2023 and March 2026 that number was 942 fulltime-equivalent staff.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00226ef6d5fb330dcba391076938747aa9fa\u0022\u003ELocal Government\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002202a27dd8348a720f07be301233ef7fa1\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 8\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022 data-id=\u0022bf7690abc1dfa6cf55d74b4a0890c4c9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bf7690abc1dfa6cf55d74b4a0890c4c9\u0022\u003ECATHERINE WEDD (National\u2014Tukituki) (14:33)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Local Government\u003C/span\u003E: What announcements has he made about capping council rates?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022703f9cf0ec4e3d3e0fce3048570b7a67\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022703f9cf0ec4e3d3e0fce3048570b7a67\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) (14:34)\u003C/span\u003E on behalf of the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Local Government\u003C/span\u003E: Today, the Government is introducing legislation to cap rates. Ratepayers have faced medium rate increases of 14.2 percent and 9.2 percent over the past two years. That is not sustainable for Kiwi households. Under the new system, councils will be required to keep annual rate increases within an initial target range of 2 percent to 4 percent. The rates cap will put a break on excessive increases, drive greater financial discipline, and sharpen the focus on delivering the basic services communities expect. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e23eb0a76fdf4a93f09063443ab6610d\u0022\u003ECatherine Wedd\u003C/span\u003E: How will the rates cap ease cost of living pressures for New Zealanders?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221338bbd02115359ef2c84058a2b51a5b\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Rates are not optional. Councils also effectively operate as monopoly providers of core services. Electricity retail companies, phone service providers\u2014unlike those, households don\u2019t actually have a choice on who they buy those services from, unless they pack up and move away. In recent years, New Zealanders have been hit with increases worth hundreds of dollars a year, compounding to thousands of dollars a year over time, and they have no choice but to eat that cost. We are putting a brake on excessive rate increase, which will flow straight to New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220718fd4589a03e14f0cfd3a911f89de1\u0022\u003ECatherine Wedd\u003C/span\u003E: How has the Government ensured the rates cap balances affordability for ratepayers with councils\u2019 need to deliver essential services?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ab817f6436256bb55b5a66327ae7d9b7\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019ve designed the cap to be firm but practical. The 2 to 4 percent range gives councils room to meet cost pressures and to continue investing in essential services and infrastructure, while putting a clear limit on excessive rate increases. There will be exemptions for genuinely exceptional circumstances\u2014natural disasters, for example. It\u2019s not about stopping councils from delivering essential services; it\u2019s about forcing prioritisation. It\u2019s a policy against 70,000 bucks on decorative artwork for a single bus stop. It\u2019s a policy against $2.3 million for light-up public toilets in Wellington. Central government isn\u2019t perfect either and we\u2019re working hard to get our books back in order, but we think the rates cap will deliver real benefits for working New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002216a880687b65c9ae730468b10eb6ce54\u0022\u003ECatherine Wedd\u003C/span\u003E: How does capping rates fit within the Government\u2019s wider programme to improve the performance and accountability of local government?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b949d7a461fc73a984125a8036dba3d7\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: On behalf of the Minister, it\u2019s another part of the Government\u2019s programme to get local government back to basics and focused on value for ratepayers. For too long, when council costs and appetites have increased, the answer has just been to say yes, because ratepayers will be there to pick up the tab. We\u2019re changing that. The rates cap will require tougher choices, prioritisation of spending, and focusing on services that communities expect to get right: roads, footpaths, rubbish, parks and recreation. Ratepayers deserve councils that respect the money they are entrusted with. This Government is putting in place the accountability around how that money is spent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022807fa30bf1850904e6e7745e09deb0fe\u0022\u003EEducation\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022fab83e5592105cf2bc431ebac6f3a4de\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 9\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022765eafcd6a77b44cf334d233b3677423\u0022\u003EHon GINNY ANDERSEN\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003ET\u0113n\u0101 koe e te M\u0101ngai o te Whare.\u003C/span\u003E My question is to the Minister of Education and reads: does she stand by her claim that \u201C2026 marks the first year of nationally consistent assessment and reporting in primary and intermediate schools\u201D; if so, how is this consistent with reports that some schools are assessing differently to others?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c99e8c1c4ad9ea988796b5ea99b5486b\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. Members are required to repeat the question that\u2019s written before them, and not change the words on the way through. She just did. She threw the word \u201Chow\u201D in there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002261b01f1715a506074b833443a48c1461\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Read the question again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022 data-id=\u0022d51d3d3ac717b88b8785378e90f75ee8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d51d3d3ac717b88b8785378e90f75ee8\u0022\u003EHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (14:37)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Education\u003C/span\u003E: Does she stand by her claim that \u201C2026 marks the first year of nationally consistent assessment and reporting in primary and intermediate schools\u201D; if so, is this consistent with reports that some schools are assessing differently to others?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002237b40d11275f4dba8e36c41507f8a1c5\u0022 data-id=\u002284ae21d1402adf7b3439a505ca96d355\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237b40d11275f4dba8e36c41507f8a1c5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002284ae21d1402adf7b3439a505ca96d355\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (14:38)\u003C/span\u003E: To the first part of the question, yes: from 2026, schools must use one of three assessment tools which report consistently against progress descriptors. To the second part of the question, yes: some schools are assessing differently to others because there are three different tools.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227ed1f292505ba2dd4efc2c9e08789c08\u0022\u003EHon Ginny Andersen\u003C/span\u003E: How can she claim that her new school reports deliver \u201Cnational consistency\u201D when principals say identical student achievement is being reported in two completely different ways?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237b40d11275f4dba8e36c41507f8a1c5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229b5dcb528634e83c5d3ab81873178cc4\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: Well, last year, the Ministry of Education worked very, very closely with the education sector\u2014with unions, with principals, with the New Zealand Rural Schools Association\u2014to put together parent reporting. We then put together a very comprehensive document called \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EReporting to Parents and Wh\u0101nau\u003C/span\u003E, which was released in term 1, which gives the sector a breakdown of exactly how to implement. Now, I understand that there are some principals who are needing some additional help, and I will say to them, and I\u2019ve also said to the ministry, that they should, firstly, read this document, and, then, secondly, please get in touch with the ministry, because they are on standby for additional help.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002270aa8fb3759d5adf5f8779f566916263\u0022\u003EHon Ginny Andersen\u003C/span\u003E: How can she claim that the guidance was clear, when schools received conflicting advice from the ministry; and will she identify which of the two different methods currently being used are supposed to be used?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237b40d11275f4dba8e36c41507f8a1c5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002248b847bf9b1868f4afec0cca4fd02117\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: As I\u2019ve already said, everything is laid out very clearly in this comprehensive document that was produced by the Ministry of Education, put out in term 1, and sent out to schools through, I believe, the method of communication that the ministry uses with schools. It all lays it out very clearly in here exactly how it\u2019s to be done. If there is still some confusion amongst schools, I would say to them: please get in touch with the ministry, have a read of this document\u2014it is all clearly laid out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228bcaaf0d931f0da95451e7608225e553\u0022\u003EHon Ginny Andersen\u003C/span\u003E: Will she accept responsibility for the inconsistent implementation of her new school reports, or does ministerial responsibility disappear whenever her policy goes wrong?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237b40d11275f4dba8e36c41507f8a1c5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221d0b34113bd82cde884e0d5fb45c1750\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s really important to understand the backdrop of where we came from before we implemented this, because when national standards were removed, nothing was put in its place. For six long years, we\u2019ve had all schools using completely different ways of reporting to parents\u2014stars, ticks, ABCs. We are now bringing consistency to the sector. It is a big change, because nothing was replaced after they removed national standards, but now we have a consistent document. It is a big change; we are here to help schools if they misunderstand anything in this document.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224a5ec3f6f604560372b57345d9185a2c\u0022\u003EHon Ginny Andersen\u003C/span\u003E: Will she apologise to the children who received lower grades, not because their achievement declined, but because she rushed out a reporting system before schools had clear and consistent instructions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237b40d11275f4dba8e36c41507f8a1c5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ea39a85e456c0b5f7f5f3a5a5dfadd4\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: Well, if there\u2019s anyone that should apologise to the children of this country, it is the previous Labour Government for ignoring all of the warning signs of the dashboard that results were plummeting while they sat back and did absolutely nothing\u2014no consistent assessment, no consistent curriculum, no consistent reporting to parents. We\u2019ve done it all, and we did it in three years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222215cf5f63ceba308b7e17623f85f2bd\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Question No. 10\u2014Chl\u00F6e Swarbrick and nobody else.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022cec61840cc5e1b67071185c86fda1796\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022910b165eea41f055bb6bb86fc9b85e55\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022 data-id=\u002254485965ddc3e38a493dbdcd6d919f09\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002254485965ddc3e38a493dbdcd6d919f09\u0022\u003ECHL\u00D6E SWARBRICK (Co-Leader\u2014Green) (14:41)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EE tautoko ana ia i ng\u0101 k\u014Drero me ng\u0101 mahi katoa a t\u014Dna K\u0101wanatanga?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003E[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EDoes he stand by all of his Government\u2019s statements and actions?\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022 data-id=\u00228f1ca9bbb4d0f31c59a1306246d27197\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228f1ca9bbb4d0f31c59a1306246d27197\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:41)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, and I just do want to reassure the member that we will not be implementing a 45 percent top tax rate, a death and inheritance tax, a gift tax, a rentals tax, or a wealth asset tax.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222318c367efac9b108b625d1fa7f9f148\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022983b94c01fa495420e8aaad356625fa8\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Hang on, hang on\u2014hang on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002276c0ba21d65433f1ad73160f224ace34\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by his Government\u2019s commitment to sign a contract with a preferred provider for the proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal before the election; and, if so, why is it appropriate for his Government to commit the country to a multi-billion-dollar investment in fossil fuels that lacks bipartisan support in the final months before an election?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228137f56c082802bf6acc131414ba9035\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I want to thank the member for her question, because wholesale electricity prices have dropped 35 percent from the 2024 peak, and the strategy of \u201Cand, and, and\u201D\u2014a strategic coal reserve, a strategic diesel reserve, an LNG import facility as a backstop, coupled with building more renewables in two years than the previous eight years\u2014is working. That is good news, because people lose their jobs, and businesses close down in regional New Zealand, because of failed energy policy from the previous administration.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fb1ed98f0b0a12e225afed1c1b42ee4b\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: What is his response to the Smart Energy Alliance, who wrote to him in July of this year stating that \u201Cthe Government should exercise restraint in recognition of rushing through such a major investment with potentially serious safety, economic and environmental implications during the pre-election period\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002264c111c48493b05ffa5d4edffe94f715\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I would say to them, just look at wholesale electricity prices on the forward curves, because the good news is that Meridian are saying they will pass that on to their commercial customers next year, and we expect them to do so.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002206e38fb88b5396370ae6d7401ca5ea23\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Will his Government underwrite the billion-dollar LNG import facility with taxpayer money?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226969d163df7ef33771f58524c51dc2ef\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fe0aa2473d32e32397c025d410ea0d9b\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Again, we\u2019ll have more to say about that when we announce our policy, but what we have said very clearly is we are not going to fund that on power bills. We are not adding to the power bills of New Zealanders, but we are going to make sure that they actually get lower downward pressure on power bills, and the way that we do it is that we make commitments to thermal firming-energy as well as expanding and opening up more renewables as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220d5bbd0ce35478f7c7e86999ddca96ee\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Are we to take that answer as confirmation that his Government will use tax\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a9a8d6dbb66f2cf486d36b6182bc3eaf\u0022\u003EHon Dr Megan Woods\u003C/span\u003E: Winston said, \u201Cno\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229006cbd8e745479e0f709b1871250b97\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry\u2014sorry. Please.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f6a68ede31d3ba103514f2d9490190b1\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Well, who\u2019s in charge? Winston Peters is answering questions as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c32d7e99d7642984766909346d05d30d\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s kind of true.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a30176fbf3adeafe2f6042f6883c85da\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Answering might be fine, but we\u2019re about to have a question asked.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002288dae6884e450d3783b1b282f82e5985\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Are we to take that answer from the Prime Minister as confirmation that he is comfortable with billions of dollars of taxpayer money being used to underwrite his LNG import facility?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221794f417607701c852590c396e185550\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: What I\u2019m very comfortable with is wholesale electricity prices dropping 35 percent, and gentailers saying they\u2019re going to pass those on to commercial customers, which means businesses stay alive\u2014the mills in regional New Zealand\u2014and that means people stay in jobs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f49baa78d2aa127f7f7b6c018df089c7\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Prime Minister telling the House that he will use taxpayer money to underwrite his billion-dollar LNG import facility?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002258175a664f425a8c52e9d3e17904f336\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019ve said previously that gentailers will pay for it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226bcc00e04f2c698456dc39e18e4387e7\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222bd1a1a92f73dc06ac6935759111f1dc\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, that\u2019s absolutely got to stop.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002275fcc679a2299a979bad17bfa6783d28\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: As well traversed, Mr Speaker, I understand that the Prime Minister doesn\u2019t actually have to answer the questions in question time, but he does have to address them. My question was specifically about the use of taxpayer money to underwrite the LNG import facility. I asked that question three times. He did not once specifically refer to the underwriting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002218772918c00ae2f2f5147be86667edac\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, he\u2019s most certainly indicated where the funding is going to come from. Now, beyond that, he also started the answer by saying that those announcements will be made when they finally announce the policy. I don\u2019t think he can take it much further than that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b00e79241e19640143555a3a8fe27b23\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. I wonder if you could clarify for us: when Winston Peters answers a question before the Prime Minister, saying, \u201CThe Government\u2019s position is no.\u201D, who do we accept the word of: is it the Prime Minister or the other one?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cb7f8e75ae1be7e5943141fa78477f94\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, you see, you\u2019re really asking me: if someone interjects at some point on an answer, do we assume that they\u2019re right? There\u2019d be numerous people on your side of the House who do also attempt to answer for the Prime Minister and other Ministers, but, by and large, we recognise it as an interjection only.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247a88a22498e4a208a43347635748943\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251d0c0f37de2e997cd4401bd9234498c\u0022\u003ET\u0101kuta Ferris\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Prime Minister stand by his Government\u2019s decisions to cut thousands of Public Service jobs, particularly in Wellington, when those job losses remove income from wh\u0101nau and spending from local communities at a time where M\u0101ori unemployment has risen to 10.8 percent, double that of non-M\u0101ori?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e21d4bb708c3460ff4ba967881c1a00f\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, we want to build a Public Service for the 2040s and beyond, not for the 1990s, and so we are going to transform the Public Service. We\u2019ve talked about that before, and we\u2019re very comfortable with the fact that we want to see better services and better delivery of customer service to the public of New Zealand, and we can do a much better job.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247a88a22498e4a208a43347635748943\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a01ebc67f409b6965571f6fe86ee1fe1\u0022\u003ET\u0101kuta Ferris\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Prime Minister stand by his Government\u2019s cost of living actions when petrol has risen by 15 percent, and diesel by 35 percent, placing added pressure on wh\u0101nau M\u0101ori in Te Tau Ihu in particular, who travel significant distances to access essential services like healthcare and schooling?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222fec7d550777cfb1c8c422382359080e\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I stand by this Government\u2019s efforts to lower inflation, to lower interest rates, and to get the economy growing so that we can get people into work. I also stand by the fact that we have done a number of things across New Zealand to actually help the M\u0101ori economy. Whether it\u2019s been in Regional Infrastructure Fund investments, that\u2019s all designed to create opportunity for M\u0101ori and non-M\u0101ori across New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247a88a22498e4a208a43347635748943\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222ad29ee99a040662bf850ea68f55eda2\u0022\u003ET\u0101kuta Ferris\u003C/span\u003E: How can the Prime Minister justify removing Tai Poutini Polytechnic as a standalone institution at a critical time where we need more pathways into education and employment, and considering 22.3 percent of rangatahi M\u0101ori aged 15 to 24 are not in employment, education, or training?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223712211a777cda3053bc776c7cd46267\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I\u2019m actually very proud of the fact that we have improved regular attendance amongst M\u0101ori students from 51.3 percent to 54.6\u00A0percent just in the last year. I\u2019m very proud of the $104 million Budget 2025 package for M\u0101ori learners, and the $334 million in Budget 2026 for M\u0101ori school property. These are all positive things designed to create opportunity for M\u0101ori and non-M\u0101ori.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247a88a22498e4a208a43347635748943\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b72ada5cfe65a9566d305ae7e75b0ca7\u0022\u003ET\u0101kuta Ferris\u003C/span\u003E: What single action can the Prime Minister point to that has measurably improved the lives of wh\u0101nau M\u0101ori in Te Tai Tonga through better cost of living, health, or education outcomes, considering the results of these measures have worsened under his Government\u2019s watch?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c8c9d781f37967f02833c3ac133f39ae\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I refer the member to the answer in the last question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00225d04681fa83fe66bd91b1812ad55f138\u0022\u003EAgriculture\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002262086ad22a3ca4a59ceeb085e14afc9c\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226aa6725740ef48a8bd0e0d084ac074fc\u0022 data-id=\u002263ca59514fcbc160cc5e62fa24d44ae1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226aa6725740ef48a8bd0e0d084ac074fc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002263ca59514fcbc160cc5e62fa24d44ae1\u0022\u003EMILES ANDERSON (National\u2014Waitaki) (14:49)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Agriculture\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Government considering a land tax on farms?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u0022776f1774aacd61bbff5c909aa10829fd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022776f1774aacd61bbff5c909aa10829fd\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (14:49)\u003C/span\u003E: No, absolutely not. The Government is keeping taxes low so that New Zealanders can keep more of what they earn and have more choices about what they and their family can do with their own money.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226aa6725740ef48a8bd0e0d084ac074fc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228578814759541a4b345dc3c2705060ac\u0022\u003EMiles Anderson\u003C/span\u003E: What reports has he seen about a land tax on farms?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e66a3c156fd74c490d6504d4022df307\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve seen a report by Federated Farmers that said\u2014and I quote\u2014\u201CA land tax would cost farmers as much as the previous Government\u2019s methane tax and send financially marginal farmers to the wall.\u201D In contrast, this Government is reducing costs and cutting red tape for farmers and growers so that they can get on with doing what they do best: producing the highest quality food in the world and creating more, and higher-paying, jobs for New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226aa6725740ef48a8bd0e0d084ac074fc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a7e61bd0632cd9c49f4cac645dee7ce6\u0022\u003EMiles Anderson\u003C/span\u003E: What other reports has he seen about a proposed land tax?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ca0a97f3a34536edf4fde1e812b9c39f\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY\u003C/span\u003E: More taxes would make our farms less competitive internationally and push up costs on New Zealand consumers. Federated Farmers also said, \u201CThe best way that we can address the cost of living crisis is by having successful businesses that can pay higher wages, so let\u2019s not provide another tax that takes away from that opportunity\u201D\u2014that was a quote. We won\u2019t be introducing a land tax or any other new tax on rural New Zealand or other New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226aa6725740ef48a8bd0e0d084ac074fc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b19676b86652df59757316280bff610d\u0022\u003EMiles Anderson\u003C/span\u003E: Has he seen any other reports about the impact of a land tax on farms?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227d4ba04d6a1ea4b27aa9d6959cd444a7\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, a report that stated the cost for farmers could be as much as $47,000 every year. A land tax would be as harmful to rural New Zealand as a capital gains tax, a wealth tax, an inheritance tax, or a death tax. None of those taxes is proposed by the Government. Instead, we\u2019re supporting farmers by implementing business-friendly initiatives like Investment Boost\u2014as they hit record exports of $64 billion this year. We want productivity, not punishment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022440a125e85954bae9f5d470b7551e4f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002224d10faf0f86a01d9aea98621bd68abe\u0022\u003ECameron Luxton\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister agree with ACT\u2019s 10 August announcement committing to no new taxes, and if so, when did the Minister decide no new taxes was the right approach?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fd118ed190a9d3da46024c007249587f\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I\u2019ve been in this Parliament for 18 years. I\u2019ve always believed that New Zealanders should keep more of what they earn. I absolutely agree with every Prime Minister of a National Government I can think of, including our current Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, who has said that the way to grow an economy and create jobs is not new taxes, which is why the Prime Minister, on behalf of the National Party, ruled out any new taxes in our next term of Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022abc81a6e6612f2a779211b60669d27d6\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question had two legs: one sought an opinion on a political party\u2019s policy, and the other asked when the member changed his mind on the policy. I don\u2019t think he actually addressed either of them; he just gave a general dissertation on his beliefs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fb86f39d176a23c614b26c4ee0bacdfb\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, no. What I heard is that he said he\u2019s been here 18 years and he always agrees with the Prime Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022649dc4c1c8129fc6af875d52f4886312\u0022\u003ECommerce and Consumer Affairs\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f88cb9af62bf481dba4c101445d340ac\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 12\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u002297b30589aa97ae0caf9ae86f27f605f0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002297b30589aa97ae0caf9ae86f27f605f0\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (14:52)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by his statement, \u201CWe believe that New Zealanders pay too much for their groceries. That\u2019s what we\u2019re focused on fixing\u201D; if so, when can New Zealanders expect lower household bills as a result of this Government\u2019s work?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022587d574de1174371be09e431d9060e87\u0022 data-id=\u00229392250bdc86a8f721b41abf4e1ab677\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022587d574de1174371be09e431d9060e87\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229392250bdc86a8f721b41abf4e1ab677\u0022\u003EHon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (14:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, that\u2019s exactly why we\u2019ve taken action to remove regulatory, enforcement, and structural barriers that limit competition in the grocery sector. We\u2019ve opened the fast-track process to supermarkets, we\u2019ve created a nationwide building consent pathway, and we\u2019ve made it easier for new entrants to use proven supermarket designs. We\u2019ve also strengthened protections for suppliers and we\u2019re strengthening our competition and fair-trading laws. With regard to prices: food inflation is currently running at 1.9\u00A0percent\u2014substantially lower than the 12.3\u00A0percent that it was in June 2023.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d032d3a22e68ed2cfabf2fa7a71911b2\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Why does the Minister defend rising grocery prices on his watch, when this Government promised more than a year ago to increase grocery competition and reduce food prices for Kiwis?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022587d574de1174371be09e431d9060e87\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b9473351783988c286c1e6b3672d1263\u0022\u003EHon CAMERON BREWER\u003C/span\u003E: We, as a Government, are all about more sustainable food price increases and we have it, so far\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E] It\u2019s tracking at a much better rate than it was in 2023. In the month of July, grocery prices increased by 0.1\u00A0percent. In the year to July, grocery prices increased just 1.9\u00A0percent. It\u2019s a big improvement from 12.3\u00A0percent in June 2023.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b1ece3c572fc0e936925b3807ff249ff\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: What does the Minister say to people paying bills for junk insurance, when the Financial Markets Authority\u2019s (FMA\u2019s) report found that some insurances pay out just 3c for every dollar paid in premiums?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022587d574de1174371be09e431d9060e87\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ad6dddaa183165f8013cc3af48c176e0\u0022\u003EHon CAMERON BREWER\u003C/span\u003E: I would repeat to the member, as I did in the Estimates debate last week, that the FMA have got a target on junk insurance\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227a9b65adb4b6883f2cd94ef1c430ea84\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: You called them loan sharks.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220fd3401e7695504ce9671be9e95c3582\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Hey!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022587d574de1174371be09e431d9060e87\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b3eba548f7c93ab36022d238fba9a341\u0022\u003EHon CAMERON BREWER\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and that is what they are focused on and that is what they continue to look into and investigate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cdf40d3fbfb035cf6a8c62022a4f4a7a\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: When will this Government stop defending high prices when those insurers are keeping 97c in the dollar every Kiwi pays?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022587d574de1174371be09e431d9060e87\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a9817678db27cbf4a4e7d97ce6ae772c\u0022\u003EHon CAMERON BREWER\u003C/span\u003E: We look forward to our insurance affordability review, that the likes of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, that the likes of the Commerce Commission, that the likes of Treasury, and others on the Council of Financial Regulators are putting together. We await their analysis with great interest.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ada6e181a424ddc9e200c85f21e543f2\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: What hard decisions has this Government actually taken to break the market power of the major supermarkets and insurers to bring prices down?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022587d574de1174371be09e431d9060e87\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022748bdc9dd095480c2b3ea62f4ab5352a\u0022\u003EHon CAMERON BREWER\u003C/span\u003E: We have done a number of things, as I said in my primary answer, but we\u2019ve also introduced stronger enforcement and greater supplier protections when you look at the Grocery Supply Code, when you look at competition law, when you look at the increasing penalties that we\u2019re putting around fair trading breaches, and when you look at the resourcing that we continue to give the Commerce Commission.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002229c9ecece26e8b5c139f50ef1df9464f\u0022\u003EDebates\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a3de5b083cabce5b7d6eef8f87538b62\u0022\u003EBed Tax\u2014Position of New Zealand National Party\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00229ca03ab82d5f30a7ff7bb03eee44ed7b\u0022\u003EUrgent Debate Declined\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220f60f8b7d7b5ff28e7a97ae2d3819941\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Members, I have received a letter from Chl\u00F6e Swarbrick seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 Christopher Luxon ruling out the implementation of a bed tax and the implications for the regional deals with Auckland and other regions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EUrgent debates are a way to hold the Government to account for actions for which it is responsible. The announcement to which the member referred in her application was made by the leader of the National Party. The authentication\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e0ce4defae636946e70e375b88eadecc\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Ah, ah\u2014got that? Got that, Chl\u00F6e?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022061190cee9dce4a8636a4dc4c6192d63\u0022\u003EWithdrawal from Chamber\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00220e7861f5d6db2fafa257aa4465f179aa\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227b6d8aabdd8292103539601596e18d32\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Hang on, hang on. Sorry, the member should just take himself out of the House. That\u2019d be good. I\u2019m going to start again. We\u2019re not having this back and forth.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022329c4d6fd63705f9cb565386c30718d0\u0022\u003EDebates\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002241645173a8459574ee686b1b21e6c790\u0022\u003EBed Tax\u2014Position of New Zealand National Party\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002267f80d372dd96288ee625dc629d25763\u0022\u003EUrgent Debate Declined\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002242b0756a5b661aed1dd8988bd7eccdc2\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Urgent debates are a way of holding the Government accountable for actions for which it is responsible. The announcement to which the member referred in her application was made by the leader of the National Party. The authentication provided with the application confirms that is the case. The application is declined.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ll take 30 seconds for those who have to go other business to leave the House. Members should make an effort to leave quickly, with no conversations on the way\u2014and a bit of quiet as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00227262e0a932b2d026351391ad52ac08d6\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022914fd75e4bb9d8791dcff3b4dbaee852\u0022\u003EAppropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d0bd4c1c370a10779644d916faf6fb61\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u2014Estimates Debate\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000320\u0022\u003EDebate resumed from 20 August.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022 data-id=\u0022c74ffc5f2cfecd3b978ca47f95d16205\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c74ffc5f2cfecd3b978ca47f95d16205\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor) (14:58)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Government has indicated that the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Minister of Health, the Minister for Energy, and the Minister for Resources will be available today to speak to their portfolios. Leading off the debate, the chairperson of the relevant select committee should take care not to be overly political and should ensure their call gives a fair reflection of the select committee\u2019s report on the votes relevant to the portfolio.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis debate expires after 11 hours, at which point the questions will be put that the votes stand part of the schedules and on the provision of the Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill. There are 4 hours and two minutes remaining in this debate. New Zealand National has 48 minutes remaining. New Zealand Labour has one hour and 14 minutes remaining. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 36 minutes remaining. ACT New Zealand has 48 minutes remaining. New Zealand First has 37 minutes remaining. Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori has 16 minutes remaining, T\u0101kuta Ferris has three minutes remaining, and Mariameno Kapa-Kingi has no time remaining.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Estimates debate should be relevant to the Government\u2019s current spending plans, as contained in the Estimates of Appropriations. The question again is that the votes contained in the Estimates of Appropriations for 2026-27 stand part of the schedules. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMembers, we start with the Minister for Social Development and Employment. The Minister is available to speak to the portfolio from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. I call Joseph Mooney, chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022faa3ad6bf2fd9e26972818c2d19a202d\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u2014Estimates Debate\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u00228351f9aadeffe48d7d9f0b06e9ad386d\u0022\u003ESocial Development and Employment\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f0d31505882949b1a768aad60863fba9\u0022 data-id=\u0022728a7d3e8411860a91be3e9719ea52ee\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f0d31505882949b1a768aad60863fba9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022728a7d3e8411860a91be3e9719ea52ee\u0022\u003EJOSEPH MOONEY (Chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee) (15:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I begin this Estimates debate by speaking briefly to the report that my committee has delivered to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EVote Social Development is the largest vote in Budget 2026; it makes up 24\u00A0percent of total funding allocated in the Budget. The vote funds many social services, including income support, student loans, emergency housing, and disability support. In 2026-27, the appropriation sought for Vote Social Development totalled $48.37 billion. The appropriations in this vote come under six ministerial portfolios\u2014the Ministry of Social Development administers the vote.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Minister for Social Development and Employment is responsible for 94\u00A0percent of the vote, with appropriations totalling $45.56 billion, including benefits or related expenses. Five other Ministers all have responsibilities for appropriations in the vote: the Minister of Revenue, $2.36 billion; the Minister of Housing, $297.4 million; the Minister for Veterans, $132.43 million; the Minister for Youth, $16.62 million; and the Minister for Seniors, $6.28 million.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EVote Social Development funds the provision of income support and the administration of associated systems and processes. The category benefits or related expenses include appropriations totalling $42.9 billion, or 88.7 percent of the vote. These appropriations are demand driven. The Minister for Social Development and Employment is responsible for all but two of these appropriations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe select committee also discussed the proportion of the total benefits or related expenses in Vote Social Development as proposed for New Zealand superannuation payments. We note that forecast amounts are set to increase, and the committee considered that work needs to be done to ensure financial sustainability as demand continues to increase for superannuation. As a total of benefits or related expenses in the 2026-27 appropriations, 62 percent were for New Zealand superannuation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s a lot more in our report, and I\u2019d recommend people read it. I look forward to the forthcoming debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u002202e972eee042448f907b8e69c8a1c320\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002202e972eee042448f907b8e69c8a1c320\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:02)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to follow the hard-working chair of the Social Services and Community Committee with a few comments and a very clear, straightforward message to the committee of the whole House. Our Government\u2019s approach to social support is simple at its heart: New Zealanders who genuinely need assistance from the Government should get it; New Zealanders who can work should work. Being in work is better for the country and better for the person than sitting on a benefit. We need to ensure that the social support system, including benefits and housing payments, are fair both for those receiving assistance and for taxpayers paying for it. The system should neither incentivise people to be supported by the State nor disincentivise people from seeking work or living independently. I\u2019m happy to answer questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022 data-id=\u00225141e87caade2852ae86bcc3d54f0a7a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225141e87caade2852ae86bcc3d54f0a7a\u0022\u003EHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:03)\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003ET\u0113n\u0101 koe e te M\u0101ngai o te Whare.\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI just want to start by asking the Minister for Social Development and Employment some questions around job seekers, and I want to ask if the Minister can confirm that the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update shows jobseeker numbers will be above 200,000 in 2030?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFurther to that, has there been a single Budget Economic and Fiscal Update or Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update, since she came into office, that has revised numbers down for 2030?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u00227fc25c1d10bfe57071b2756d17e722f4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227fc25c1d10bfe57071b2756d17e722f4\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:04)\u003C/span\u003E: I can confirm that the jobseeker forecasts were always anticipated to get higher when we came into office with the dire economic position that we inherited.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022 data-id=\u002275afc2a8b46ff7c21559828b376a1c4a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002275afc2a8b46ff7c21559828b376a1c4a\u0022\u003EHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:04)\u003C/span\u003E: Further to that, then, have her officials verbally or in writing told her that her target of 50,000 fewer job seekers is unachievable?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022f6ffd2c1950888440dfc3af7e9b854c5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f6ffd2c1950888440dfc3af7e9b854c5\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:04)\u003C/span\u003E: No, Mr Chair; I\u2019ve always said it\u2019s ambitious.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u00220a2c7e2c5c250f78a4d7517233d74bf3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220a2c7e2c5c250f78a4d7517233d74bf3\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:04)\u003C/span\u003E: Picking up on the line from the Minister, who said New Zealanders who can work should work, does the Minister have any evidence to substantiate that there is a job available for every single beneficiary in this country?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u002224e6bbcb5eea47376eee9ec4179d4437\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002224e6bbcb5eea47376eee9ec4179d4437\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:04)\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s never been the assertion. Our Government is very clear that it is important for New Zealanders who can work to be available to work, to be preparing for work, and taking work when it is available.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u0022fe5c9a21701db49d8e8a9011ecb6eae7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fe5c9a21701db49d8e8a9011ecb6eae7\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:04)\u003C/span\u003E: What is the Government\u2019s goal, then, of stripping benefits from 18- and 19-year-olds when she has just basically conceded that there\u2019s not a single job available for every beneficiary out there?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u00222e15fcac95b5ea174f93d911f846d126\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222e15fcac95b5ea174f93d911f846d126\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, don\u2019t put words in my mouth. What I would like to say is that from Budget 2026, Treasury\u2019s forecasts say 220,000 jobs will be created. That is the Government\u2019s hard work in terms of growing the economy. We want to ensure that 18- and 19-year-olds, instead of being stuck on welfare for another 20 years of their life, are connected with the opportunities that this great country provides.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cdf1d69430e59d02f825e29d690593ff\u0022\u003ERicardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002208e83a877a9efc6603cf2bb4ef6d8f42\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March, and if you wouldn\u2019t mind just giving me, each time you stand up\u2014the technicians need time to catch up with you, which is why we call your name.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u0022acb46bb0e688c7aa70ea730411540c03\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022acb46bb0e688c7aa70ea730411540c03\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:05)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m saving as much as time as possible! Thank you. Can the Minister confirm that every single person on jobseeker health condition and disability\u2014who may be facing cancer, skin conditions, congenital disorders, or psychiatric and psychological conditions\u2014is fit to go into study or training?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u002286d72cb5b9488506152bbeda2eda770f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002286d72cb5b9488506152bbeda2eda770f\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:06)\u003C/span\u003E: We are very clear that we want 18- and 19-year-olds in employment, training, or in work and, if they\u2019re not able to do so, then their families should be the first line of support.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u002251a943932b16e13b02ee88b9d94cfbe3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002251a943932b16e13b02ee88b9d94cfbe3\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. To the previous comment from the Minister, who said that I was putting words in her mouth: can she confirm, then, that there is a single job available for every 18- and 19-year-old who she\u2019s about to cut the benefits for?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u00224bdcabc16f3fe912154cc39094d899c7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224bdcabc16f3fe912154cc39094d899c7\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:06)\u003C/span\u003E: I reject that assertion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022 data-id=\u0022f1149b06b8b5e87f4d6e8fd4e5167dd2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f1149b06b8b5e87f4d6e8fd4e5167dd2\u0022\u003EHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Can she confirm that there are now 9,000 more 18- to 24-year-olds on jobseeker support compared to when she came into office?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022 data-id=\u00226a53352737530bbac205c7587b2bb53e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226a53352737530bbac205c7587b2bb53e\u0022\u003EORIINI KAIPARA (Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori\u2014T\u0101maki Makaurau) (15:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister accept that taking jobseeker support away from 18- and 19-year-olds who can\u2019t safely rely on their parents may reduce the benefit count, but it doesn\u2019t put those rangatahi into work, education, training, or even a home? Off the back of that, what specific appropriation in Vote Social Development will guarantee that every rangatahi refused jobseeker support under the new parental assistance test has safe accommodation and enough income to meet their basic needs?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022a1d9ca67c2a27defa8fd8b944598269b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a1d9ca67c2a27defa8fd8b944598269b\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:07)\u003C/span\u003E: We have a parental assistance test for that very reason: to protect those who either don\u2019t have a family connection or whose family\u2019s income is low.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022 data-id=\u002220d96ae7931991dc3d93b5fb367ff437\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002220d96ae7931991dc3d93b5fb367ff437\u0022\u003EORIINI KAIPARA (Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori\u2014T\u0101maki Makaurau) (15:07)\u003C/span\u003E: How does the Minister\u2019s parental income test distinguish between income recorded on paper and a home that is safe, available, and willing to support that rangatahi?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022 data-id=\u00228a2d1b6d7d69aab9bd4f2d736af3a7ec\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228a2d1b6d7d69aab9bd4f2d736af3a7ec\u0022\u003EHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:07)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Given that the Minister couldn\u2019t or wouldn\u2019t answer my previous question about confirming whether there are 9,000 more 18- to 24-year-olds on jobseeker benefit since she came into office, can she confirm that there are now 10,000 more M\u0101ori on jobseeker compared to when she took office?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022910895464933178ecc8f37ab3953c000\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022910895464933178ecc8f37ab3953c000\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:08)\u003C/span\u003E: I should just put on record that one of the challenges with these debates and why I\u2019m not going to be able to answer every question is that we are time limited in the National Party. From here on, I will wait for a significant number of questions that I will try and group together so I can provide answers, otherwise I won\u2019t have sufficient time available.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022 data-id=\u002261c5cd084e364226b4eb78f4912531e2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002261c5cd084e364226b4eb78f4912531e2\u0022\u003EHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:08)\u003C/span\u003E: Therefore, I would like to know: are there 10,000 more M\u0101ori on jobseeker compared to when she took office, 9,000 more 18- to 24-year-olds since she took office, and 10,000 more women?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u00221838fc1ec97e6db2c303a58a7c31b3bd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221838fc1ec97e6db2c303a58a7c31b3bd\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:08)\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u00228bc3b7581fabef503cadc927dbd2d919\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228bc3b7581fabef503cadc927dbd2d919\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:08)\u003C/span\u003E: On the parental income test, does she deem a family earning a total combined income of $68,000\u2014say, a family of four\u2014actually able to afford their basic essentials? Why did she set the parental income test so low, to the point that it makes it impossible for a family to survive on, say, a total combined income of $68,000 a year? Will she commit to ensuring that no family experiences hardship as a result of the settings that she has set for the parental income test and the fact that she will be cutting benefits from 18- to 19-year-olds with health conditions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022 data-id=\u00225864501904e2d786c8e312fe79a3e11b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225864501904e2d786c8e312fe79a3e11b\u0022\u003EORIINI KAIPARA (Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori\u2014T\u0101maki Makaurau) (15:09)\u003C/span\u003E: Will the Minister guarantee that no rangatahi or young person will become homeless, remain in an unsafe home, or be forced to return to an abusive household because the Ministry of Social Development has determined that the parents should support them? Further to that, will the Minister support a statutory duty requiring agencies to prevent rangatahi homelessness before it occurs, including coordinated assessment, referral, and housing support\u2014the very approach proposed in my youth homelessness prevention bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u002273219447af5063a81bdd1faa698e1771\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002273219447af5063a81bdd1faa698e1771\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:09)\u003C/span\u003E: Many members have referred to our policy for Budget 2026, which is tightening jobseeker support for 18- and 19-year-olds. I think it is important for us to put on record the policy intent behind this. What we do know is that in terms of the forecasts, 18- and 19-year-olds\u2014actually, anyone who goes on to jobseeker benefit under the age of 25 is forecast, on average, to spend another 20 years of their life on welfare. Our side of the House doesn\u2019t think that that should be as good as it gets for 18- and 19-year-olds, which is why we have put this policy in place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u0022ce058f785dd5c959a3b7627ba2764c13\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ce058f785dd5c959a3b7627ba2764c13\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:10)\u003C/span\u003E: Does she think it\u2019s better to answer questions than instead just give a speech that does not address any of our questions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022 data-id=\u0022e4da1c7688ea85a0afb9fd1c1f805b07\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e4da1c7688ea85a0afb9fd1c1f805b07\u0022\u003EHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:10)\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, thank you. After excluding 18- and 19-year-olds, are there any other groups that she can arbitrarily exclude to reach her target of 50,000 less jobseekers?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022 data-id=\u002270c63437c3b040540df90c7d5a46bc36\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002270c63437c3b040540df90c7d5a46bc36\u0022\u003EORIINI KAIPARA (Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori\u2014T\u0101maki Makaurau) (15:11)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019d like to now ask the Minister for Social Development and Employment questions around sanctions and hardship. In June 2025, M\u0101ori comprised 39 percent of working-age benefit recipients but received 55 percent of sanctions. What M\u0101ori equity assessment has the Minister required before funding a strong sanctions regime?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll ask another question. How many M\u0101ori adults and tamariki are forecast to lose income through sanctions in 2026-2027, and what amount has been appropriated to meet the resulting demand for food grants, housing assistance, and community support?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne more: does the Minister consider a policy equitable when M\u0101ori receive a majority of sanctions, and, if so, what evidence supports that conclusion?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022 data-id=\u00223c2970620a05f8cf8674d054872d0fd3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223c2970620a05f8cf8674d054872d0fd3\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert) (15:11)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019ve got several questions. The first one takes up the point that the Minister for Social Development and Employment has made about people who are on benefits at an early age ending up with a lifetime on benefits. I wondered whether the Minister would like to tell us whether, in fact, what we\u2019re looking at there is correlation or causation, because there must be many other factors that need to be looked at in terms of what support or non-support we put around people at that age. What we have, from what I could see\u2014and I was on the Social Services and Community Committee\u2014is a situation where there isn\u2019t a great connection under the new policy with support for this very group. They\u2019re not in a situation where there are going to be those kinds of support. So I\u2019d like to know about that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019d also like the Minister to answer the question about the issue around domestic and sexual abuse, because this age group, when they are suddenly unable to be put on benefits, etc., they often end up on the street, and I\u2019d like to know what kind of wraparound support she\u2019s putting in place to make sure that that is not an outcome of what she is doing today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022f2f7469bf1d9a57ec77f84d08c24bc8e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f2f7469bf1d9a57ec77f84d08c24bc8e\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:13)\u003C/span\u003E: I want to address the question around M\u0101ori on the jobseeker benefit and other benefits. Yes, they are disproportionately affected. That is also why, in terms of the percentage of programmes that we have M\u0101ori participating in, they are also significantly higher: case management, 42.5 percent; Flexi-wage 33, Mana in Mahi 31; He Poutama Rangatahi 75. That is also why I would say our $93 million investment in sole parents\u2014a large proportion are M\u0101ori. We want to support sole parents into work; that\u2019s why we\u2019re investing in it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u00228db1f636dd470d7ca293215971db578f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228db1f636dd470d7ca293215971db578f\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:13)\u003C/span\u003E: I have just a few questions on different topics. How much money has she saved up to date on her cuts to accommodation supplements for people who have boarders?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019m also interested to know, with the savings that she\u2019s producing through the use of automated decision-making and the use of mandatory reviews: would she be able to confirm that no supported living payment or other main benefits have been wrongfully cut because of mandatory review policies?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022cf5e1dc0ef52bdbcdc0dfcc1b155ad5d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cf5e1dc0ef52bdbcdc0dfcc1b155ad5d\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:14)\u003C/span\u003E: Budget 2026 actually increases the accommodation supplement. The maximum rates of accommodation supplement for all areas get an increase of between $10 and $30 per week.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u0022f6cd247d48d6ac6a5fb79236ec42ed0b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f6cd247d48d6ac6a5fb79236ec42ed0b\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Musterer\u2014Green) (15:14)\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Chairperson. Sorry, but if I ask about one specific policy and she talks about a completely different one, how are we supposed to have an actual exchange or debate, where she\u2019s literally speaking of a completely different policy? She knows which policy I\u2019m talking about, but she\u2019s choosing to instead just mention something completely unrelated. We will not have a\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002252714cab0718febe3ac49a8d9aa090fe\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the good thing about this question/answer: you\u2019re always in a position to answer the question again, and continue to ask it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u00226ee0812b820bab1ba90f50060c3d4f08\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226ee0812b820bab1ba90f50060c3d4f08\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:14)\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Minister aware that she just quoted an entirely different policy, and I was simply asking: how much money has she saved through the cuts to the accommodation supplement for people who have boarders? That is completely unrelated to the increase in accommodation supplement for a completely different group.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022d83bdc84b9e25952c3cadd0e599482b1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d83bdc84b9e25952c3cadd0e599482b1\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:15)\u003C/span\u003E: I understood that this Estimates was about Budget 2026. In Budget 2026, we have increased the accommodation supplement by $10 to $30 per week.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u002254e19820fe29c1cb06e094ab29d3effd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002254e19820fe29c1cb06e094ab29d3effd\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:15)\u003C/span\u003E: All right. Does she think it is fair to cut the accommodation supplement for low-income homeowners while she herself is claiming $50,000-plus in subsidies that she is receiving directly from taxpayers?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022 data-id=\u002269a4435093c5bd236be69093c5b6721b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002269a4435093c5bd236be69093c5b6721b\u0022\u003EHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Were the winter energy payment cuts budgeted for in this Budget, and, if so, how much? Further to that, how long did the average pensioner or veteran who lost their winter energy payment have to go without money to pay for their energy bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022d1472cdf2107c34823fea111015d8d00\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d1472cdf2107c34823fea111015d8d00\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:15)\u003C/span\u003E: There were no cuts to winter energy payments in Budget 2026. The member is traversing an issue that has come into play because of modernisation legislation. I have apologised to those superannuitants who had their winter energy payment reduced when they should not. Within less than three days of me being aware of it, all of those payments had been returned.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u002282d81b7a6da3e1ef99f9c474b2992ebf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002282d81b7a6da3e1ef99f9c474b2992ebf\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:16)\u003C/span\u003E: Will she answer my question and confirm whether any main benefits were wrongfully cut through the use of mandatory reviews?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022 data-id=\u002206ee390d7e8384bfedbba40e9f954429\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002206ee390d7e8384bfedbba40e9f954429\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert) (15:16)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair, thank you. Following the debacle with winter energy payments, does the Minister accept that one of my colleagues\u2014Ingrid Leary\u2014raised this very issue during the committee stage and that she failed to take it into account; it was a mistake to put this particular piece of legislation through under urgency; and, in fact, this Parliament has let the public down by using a process where she did not answer, address, or take seriously those issues which were raised in an urgent situation and could have well not been raised at all?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u002273ad239bb40b3eb9673042fccdd9ff49\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002273ad239bb40b3eb9673042fccdd9ff49\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:17)\u003C/span\u003E: Why is she not answering my question as to whether main benefits were wrongfully cut through the use of mandatory reviews, and why will she not answer my question as to whether it is fair to cut the accommodation supplement to produce savings from low-income homeowners while Ministers are able to take tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer subsidies each year for accommodation that they already own?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022 data-id=\u0022ab1756eee31841140bd208de05cb77b0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ab1756eee31841140bd208de05cb77b0\u0022\u003EHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:17)\u003C/span\u003E: When were staff at the Ministry of Social Development first alerted to winter energy payments being wrongfully cut\u2014and then being rectified in this financial year and, therefore, out of this Budget? I have some questions which are now overdue, and I want to know what was the total number of people receiving superannuation and any other forms of support that were cut. Have any winter energy payments been mistakenly cancelled for people who were entitled to them and were receiving them, and, if so, how many of those occurred?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022 data-id=\u0022e66691dae44a1ed3910b9271029f6440\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e66691dae44a1ed3910b9271029f6440\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert) (15:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to return to the issue of automated decision-making because there was a regulatory impact statement that went on the Table during the committee of the whole House stage which had large parts of it blocked out. One of those parts that was blocked out was about what the problem was that the Minister fixed in that piece of legislation, and what I\u2019d like to know is whether the Minister is prepared to tell us what the problem was.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt was actually blocked out because it was seen as legally privileged. My concern was that automated decision-making may well have been going on without that kind of legal licence and I wondered whether that was the risk, but that was only guessing. I could only guess, because the problem that we were apparently fixing in urgency was blocked out. Can the Minister tell me\u2014and she\u2019s perfectly entitled to do so\u2014what the problem was that we were fixing when we brought in an automated system when, in fact, there are risks associated with that, and recorded overseas, which are quite significant?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAfter that process, I had people contact me who were experts in this area who were particularly concerned with that sort of use of automation in our social welfare system, and I\u2019d like that answer for them. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022ad3e580c8bd5554277705d8b0d4ec1cd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ad3e580c8bd5554277705d8b0d4ec1cd\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:19)\u003C/span\u003E: I accept that there is significant interest in the issues that occurred with the winter energy payment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn terms of the detailed questions that the member asked about time frames and quantity, a review is under way with the Ministry of Social Development, and so I will provide answers to all of that when I have it. I think that that is a better option than me putting some information on the table that with greater investigation might be deemed to not be accurate. I do want to reassure the House that automated decision making was not the problem with the winter energy payment. As I\u2019ve explained in the House\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225db4ac3fbdfe3514350a15c655195e2e\u0022\u003EHelen White\u003C/span\u003E: It has nothing to do with the winter energy payment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c4c1ceec3fce7874e5d227c1f4f2c2fe\u0022\u003ERicardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u003C/span\u003E: Uh, yes, it was.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221fe8c27d876d5e02e54a2051fdddee78\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: No, it wasn\u2019t. As I\u2019ve said in the House\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022914cb9f0008181f21d1cef698c2d7c10\u0022\u003ERicardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u003C/span\u003E: The reviews are triggered through ADM.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002226bec7c984284e20ecd6ade9b0221f85\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, if\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003Esits down\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022 data-id=\u002253af540ebe887d4c35d11c2d7011f809\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002253af540ebe887d4c35d11c2d7011f809\u0022\u003EHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:20)\u003C/span\u003E: I appreciate that the Minister is undertaking a review. However, she says that all of the payments have been made, so surely they have that information, and therefore, my questions, that are now overdue, could be answered. Further to that, I also ask the Minister: have any disability allowance recipients had their winter energy payment stopped without a request to do so, and how many did that occur for?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u0022cd5b6dc84a241915547bf85fa1b24775\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cd5b6dc84a241915547bf85fa1b24775\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:20)\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Minister confirm that the winter energy payments were cut through the process of confirming your circumstances, which in and of itself is triggered by the mandatory review policy, which is also triggered through the use of automated decision making?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u002230023cc0a6cdfe27d975ddce4a15d3b9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002230023cc0a6cdfe27d975ddce4a15d3b9\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:21)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m happy to answer the question if members would like it; if they interrupt, then I\u2019ll just sit down again. In terms of the winter energy payment, there is no eligibility requirement for superannuitants around the winter energy payment, unlike others. The issue only relates to superannuitants, where there is no requirement\u2014no means or asset testing, no other requirements around eligibility for the winter energy payment. The issue was a policy oversight. The oversight was then reflected in the legislation; the legislation was then put forward into the automated decision making, the IT solution, which was where the mistake occurred right at the start, as a policy error. It was not an automated decision making error; it was a policy error.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022 data-id=\u002211bd4c376fea1b2879c17b3247041d69\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002211bd4c376fea1b2879c17b3247041d69\u0022\u003EORIINI KAIPARA (Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori\u2014T\u0101maki Makaurau) (15:22)\u003C/span\u003E: I also have questions around the previous member from Labour\u2014automated decision making. Budget 2026 provides $9.28 million operating, and $2.64 million capital for automated decision making. How much of the $11.92 million allocated to automated decision making will be spent independently testing for bias against M\u0101ori? Were M\u0101ori data sovereignty experts, iwi, or M\u0101ori benefit advocates involved in designing the Ministry for Social Development automated decision making standard? If so, who were they? Will the Minister guarantee that an automated system will never impose a sanction, suspend income, decline hardship assistance, or create a debt without meaningful human review? Why does the Vote fund the expansion of automated decision making, but contain no specific published performance measure for M\u0101ori equity? This is the last one to the Minister: who is accountable when an automated decision is technically consistent with a rule, but fails to understand the reality of a wh\u0101nau M\u0101ori?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u002238683f8aac70f7579e6bc00b440b2e18\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002238683f8aac70f7579e6bc00b440b2e18\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:23)\u003C/span\u003E: The automated decision making standard was introduced in 2022, and the Social Security (Modernisation) Amendment Act strengthened it, to take into consideration issues like the member has just raised. so that the statutory requirement now is that it must consider bias and discrimination, legal and policy considerations, fraud considerations, transparency, human oversight, and compliance and assurance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u00223c13a3aa7f54aaa8ec15f78df6ce3f4d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223c13a3aa7f54aaa8ec15f78df6ce3f4d\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:23)\u003C/span\u003E: If the Minister is refusing to outline the policy problem that this bill was trying to address, why did she need to push it through urgency?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022 data-id=\u0022e5a977d6e18292d785d4bb2acbd9dc1f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e5a977d6e18292d785d4bb2acbd9dc1f\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert) (15:23)\u003C/span\u003E: I have asked the question a number of times, including in committee stage, about what was going on with the automated decision making legislation, in terms of its urgency and its policy problem. It\u2019s a seriously Orwellian issue, when I look at a piece of legislation, and I look at the regulatory impact statement (RIS), and it says, \u201CWhat is the problem that we are trying to fix?\u201D And then it is all blanked out. I do not think that that is democracy. I would like to know what the problem was that the Minister was fixing under urgency. It is a perfectly plain thing for me to try and understand. There have obviously been issues with that piece of legislation, and it\u2019s a serious issue of policy, and I would like the Minister to tell me what it was that was the problem we were trying to fix. It\u2019s not brain surgery. I\u2019d like an answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022 data-id=\u0022841f18c5d07f40392b9df37af726db0e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022841f18c5d07f40392b9df37af726db0e\u0022\u003EORIINI KAIPARA (Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori\u2014T\u0101maki Makaurau) (15:24)\u003C/span\u003E: I have questions to the Minister about kaupapa M\u0101ori delivery, and Te Tiriti, especially around the $48.38 million sought through Vote Social Development. How much is contracted directly to M\u0101ori providers, and what percentage is that of the Vote? What binding M\u0101ori equity targets apply to this Vote? How does the Minister define success for M\u0101ori: fewer benefit recipients, or greater mana motuhake, secure housing, adequate income, and sustained employment? Why does the Vote not require the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to report systematically on whether each major appropriation is reducing inequities between M\u0101ori and non-M\u0101ori? And the last one on this section: will the Minister commit to co-designing MSD services and employment programmes with M\u0101ori, including devolving resources and decision making to M\u0101ori organisations with established relationships of trust?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u0022867674947b8d071cc739344e454978bf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022867674947b8d071cc739344e454978bf\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:25)\u003C/span\u003E: Is it correct that her cuts to the accommodation supplement for low-income homeowners will be primarily borne by families with children? Why is she choosing to cut the accommodation supplement for thousands of low-income families?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u00225228a56ce956ed61a4d621c0477dc952\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225228a56ce956ed61a4d621c0477dc952\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (15:26)\u003C/span\u003E: I wonder if I could ask the Minister about the winter energy payment situation, and I know that she has said that it has been remediated. I understand the issue arose through policy perhaps not finding its way into the legislation that was passed under Budget urgency. Could she explain how it is that the payments were made without the legislative fix, seeing as it was a legislative error that led to the failure of the payments. How is it that the Government can make those payments, which weren\u2019t authorised by the Budget, without amending the legislation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u00226034f07ddbd51179a67fe6606cc18714\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226034f07ddbd51179a67fe6606cc18714\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:27)\u003C/span\u003E: I have been advised by the whips that my time allocation is nearly at its end, but I know that there is a lot of interest in that. In terms of the issue, it is the review that was required. It was a review of circumstances. It was not authorisation\u2014authorising or not the winter energy payment. There is no legal requirement in terms of reimbursing people that had payments taken away that they shouldn\u2019t have.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u0022e530ba1d509b4232a3ba7cfb90ffc003\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e530ba1d509b4232a3ba7cfb90ffc003\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:27)\u003C/span\u003E: I acknowledge that the Minister has very little time, so hopefully this will only require a yes or no answer. Where there any main benefits wrongfully cut through the use of the \u201CConfirming your Circumstances\u201D policies triggered by mandatory reviews?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u00220c0593a615929611dba49db05a692662\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220c0593a615929611dba49db05a692662\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:27)\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022 data-id=\u0022e6c4014852116a547925a7c5be4fc424\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e6c4014852116a547925a7c5be4fc424\u0022\u003EHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:27)\u003C/span\u003E: Further to the question from my colleague: it\u2019s not required to make reimbursement, but was reimbursement made, for the winter energy payments?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002207e780fb92634767aaa9263259d4bee7\u0022\u003EHon Louise Upston\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve already said that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223a14785569f11b472bdba1ff0550495a\u0022\u003EHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME\u003C/span\u003E: They were?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a87d921c413c3e22b32f3c3b0da3bf69\u0022\u003EHon Louise Upston\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227641f57c4feee2bb4a344ee64a0ed699\u0022\u003EHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME\u003C/span\u003E: They weren\u2019t required by a law change to be able to make those reimbursements. I did ask the question about whether anybody with the disability allowance had their winter energy payments removed. In addition to that, is superannuitants who might also be receiving further disability allowances being impacted in that way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022a7bee2ca96af1f0fda3fb6186e6f415e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a7bee2ca96af1f0fda3fb6186e6f415e\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:28)\u003C/span\u003E: They\u2019re two completely separate issues. Where the issue has occurred is with superannuitants where there was no requirement around winter energy payment and their eligibility. As I\u2019ve said, there will be a review; there will be more information available. I\u2019m limited in my time now, so I\u2019m not going to answer any further questions on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022 data-id=\u00229265efa81e384ab0f0d914f219f93ae2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229265efa81e384ab0f0d914f219f93ae2\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert) (15:28)\u003C/span\u003E: Would the review be able to include the process that we went through in this House with regard to that matter, where we raised that issue and through the net that is supposed to work\u2014the safety net that is that committee process\u2014we were supposed to be able to get answers, and yet those answers didn\u2019t come. Would we be able to go that far to look at what we got wrong? Because after all, we have New Zealanders who really needed to stay warm this winter who were put at risk, and who knows what the consequences were for some of them because we didn\u2019t pick up the alarm bell when it went off in this House. Is that possible? That really would require a yes or no answer. The Minister, I think, does have time to do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf she\u2019s not going to, I would like to return to the issue of the change in the safety net that we provide to our younger people who are unemployed. I do understand that the Minister hasn\u2019t got much time left, so I\u2019m going to say what I need to say about that, given that the Labour Party still has quite a lot of time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat I want to say is that we have a situation where, in the Social Services and Community Committee\u2014which I lead for Labour\u2014we have seen an absolute increase in unemployment in that particular group; but we also have a group which are now, as I understand it, put in a position where, if they are to receive any kind of support, it is because they are going to be in training, and that training is not without cost. In fact, that\u2019s the nature of what we\u2019re doing to training beyond school now. Everything has a charge attached, and so this group are in a situation where, if they\u2019re going to receive any kind of financial support, it\u2019s going to be going into training.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, there\u2019s training and there\u2019s training. Some of that training is great. I\u2019d love to see people in it, but they have to be in the mindset and in the physical capacity to do that training. What, in fact, they\u2019re being encouraged to do, from what I can see, is pick up a loan and do training when they\u2019re actually not necessarily ready for it. What they\u2019re ready for is a job. They want a job, and, actually, the best training in the world, I think, is that early work where you get in and you get a job and you get started.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy understanding of this policy is that it actually hurts that group\u2014that group that just needs to get working. Because this Government has tanked this economy, there just isn\u2019t the work for that group. Our stats tell us that people in that age group are the ones who always fall into that situation of being the least likely to get work. We know that because the stats are through the roof. We talk and celebrate these rates of unemployment, which might hover around 5 or 6 percent, but the rates for that group are through the roof. We are talking 20 to 25 percent, and they get worse if you\u2019re M\u0101ori.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThose particular groups are the ones who are not able to find work, and their only pathway now into it is, actually, through going and getting into some sort of training, which they might not be ready for, and all it\u2019s doing is racking up debt. I always think it\u2019s kind of weird that we encourage young people to get a whole lot of debt when they\u2019ve never paid back a penny. They have no idea how hard it is to pay that debt back, and that\u2019s what they end up doing. We encourage, as a society, that group to go into some sort of training that they\u2019re not ready for just so they can receive support. We do it, and we basically say that it\u2019s their problem if they can\u2019t get a job, when, in fact, there are no jobs for that group.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I meet other groups impacted like this. When unemployment hits our economy, I meet other groups. It\u2019s not just youth; it\u2019s also often migrant groups who can\u2019t get the work because they don\u2019t have the contacts, and I see some things that work. One of the things I saw that worked this time in the Social Services and Community Committee was the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs, a fantastic organisation getting people employment. But when I asked them, \u201CHow do people approach you and get jobs?\u201D, guess what! You have to be in the know. You have to actually know it exists to get into that situation. Again, the same kids, the ones that are disconnected, the ones that haven\u2019t got the family contacts, the ones that are poor, they\u2019re the ones who are being impacted here, and the Minister for Social Development and Employment\u2019s answer to this is, \u201CWe\u2019ll put it all back on the parents.\u201D Well, guess what! The parents don\u2019t have any money, either. Actually, the rates that we\u2019re cutting off are too low for that group. They are low rates. I would challenge the Minister to try and live off that kind of money. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c57965dbe39ad365563c9c0db5ebc1cd\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019d just say that, obviously, the Minister for Social Development and Employment is at something of a disadvantage where her colleagues before her have, let\u2019s say, misappropriated her time. It doesn\u2019t really represent an opportunity for free shots. What it does represent is to make sure there is some context to any long or shorter statements you may make that do relate to the current spending plans. A wise speaker would reasonably often refer back to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u00224364760bad6ff7b4f5c7ec6ec60cd81f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224364760bad6ff7b4f5c7ec6ec60cd81f\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:34)\u003C/span\u003E: Mindful that the Minister for Social Development and Employment has little time remaining, and so do we, so these are yes or no questions if she would like to give succinct answers. Was there a policy problem that the modernisation bill was trying to address\u2014yes or no? And will she commit to 18- to 19-year-olds with health conditions, injuries, or disabilities that their health conditions, injuries, and disabilities will not get worse once their benefit gets cut?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022 data-id=\u0022bd654eebb616d36bf7525f702d065af1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bd654eebb616d36bf7525f702d065af1\u0022\u003EHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:35)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair, I do just have a few questions around seniors in hardship given we\u2019ve been talking about the cuts to superannuitants\u2019 winter energy payments. What in this Budget is there to address hardship that seniors are increasingly enduring? What advice did she get about increasing poverty among seniors and how this Budget could respond to it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELast week, we had the release of the first ever Older Person\u2019s Poverty Monitor 2026 report, which showed that 25,000 older people are living without the essentials. Almost 12 percent, or 102,000 older people, are living in income poverty after housing costs; 25,000 people are experiencing material hardship, living without the essentials needed for a decent living standard; over 50,000 older people rely on support for housing costs through the accommodation supplement; and 76,000 special needs grants were provided to those aged over 65 years in the 2025 calendar year so that they could meet their basic needs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy question to the Minister for Social Development and Employment is: what, in this Budget, is there to address the hardship that seniors are increasingly enduring?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u002239ae93798ca57744ca3cac40f17df448\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002239ae93798ca57744ca3cac40f17df448\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:36)\u003C/span\u003E: In Budget 2026, for the first time ever, Food Secure Communities has baseline funding of $8 million, and as I said before, the accommodation supplement has increased between $10 and $30 a week.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022 data-id=\u0022eddee21505c2ccb0630d9bb1e5e7137a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022eddee21505c2ccb0630d9bb1e5e7137a\u0022\u003EHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:36)\u003C/span\u003E: Does she think that there is adequate funding in this year\u2019s Budget for food security when we have findings from 35 food rescues across the country that are worried about closing in the next six months due to the rising costs and lack of funding? Also, the Salvation Army says that demand is up 50\u00A0percent and that this hasn\u2019t improved since COVID, so why did she not secure funding for food banks beyond that of June next year? Also, the sector has been calling for a strategic approach to food security; is there any funding in Budget 2026 for this, and, if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022fdc33bb4a18ea45c933efadbd454288e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fdc33bb4a18ea45c933efadbd454288e\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:37)\u003C/span\u003E: As I said, first time ever baseline funding of $8 million for Food Secure Communities\u2014first time ever.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u0022e0652030ce3fa98953945edd5ea3678b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e0652030ce3fa98953945edd5ea3678b\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Just going back to an earlier question: can the Minister for Social Development and Employment confirm that there were no incidents where the mandatory review policy meant that someone on a supported living payment or another main benefit sent information but case managers were not able to get to it in time and it resulted in someone\u2019s benefit being suspended? Can she confirm that there were no incidents in which a main benefit was cancelled due to case managers not being able to get to the paperwork that the beneficiary sent as part of the mandatory review policy, resulting in the suspension of main benefits?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022952f2db2ca41bad998aad87e95157f31\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022952f2db2ca41bad998aad87e95157f31\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:38)\u003C/span\u003E: I can confirm that there were delays in processing. The reason for this is that the expectation was that more of the change in circumstances would have been completed online rather than paper based.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u0022105c75fc22515b5686a8b3ce1fd0b612\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022105c75fc22515b5686a8b3ce1fd0b612\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Did any of those delays result in the suspension of main benefits?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u00220486e120b2b43efce3d3d70eb4ee2c61\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220486e120b2b43efce3d3d70eb4ee2c61\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:38)\u003C/span\u003E: They were delays. They\u2019re not policy changes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022 data-id=\u00221070567b37ce15f8192437bb6b3ed3be\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221070567b37ce15f8192437bb6b3ed3be\u0022\u003EHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:38)\u003C/span\u003E: But did it result in any of them being cut?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226d36ac78b8851e7b992f42ba6593adf0\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Again, members, and including the Minister for Social Development and Employment, just so your initial statements are caught, just give me the opportunity to introduce you to the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u00223ad397604fc04f5f92d47d11362aa5e9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223ad397604fc04f5f92d47d11362aa5e9\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Did those delays in processing result in any benefits being cut?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022 data-id=\u0022732470c6e93b5ceec8a4f4aa5cf78437\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022732470c6e93b5ceec8a4f4aa5cf78437\u0022\u003EHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, look at the Minister for Social Development and Employment pretending like she has no time left to be able to answer that really important question. Did those delays result in any benefits being cut?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022233aa2543e32fbcc057821c35eb9b926\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022233aa2543e32fbcc057821c35eb9b926\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:39)\u003C/span\u003E: Possibly, and, for the last time, I have no more time. I\u2019m not speaking, all right? I don\u2019t want to upset anyone. We\u2019ve tried to improve this process, and the Labour Party didn\u2019t agree.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u00220d70ff77375829a8ec0f115c9ffa75db\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220d70ff77375829a8ec0f115c9ffa75db\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Musterer\u2014Green) (15:39)\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. Just seeking your guidance: is there any way in which we can seek leave to give the Minister for Social Development and Employment a bit more time? I seek leave to grant the Minister for Social Development and Employment a minute.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022092b9b6223d3fc2538ddfab3286d2ce6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Just hold on. I\u2019ll just take some advice on this from my very learned Clerk.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThis is not going off anyone\u2019s time, you\u2019ll be pleased to know. All right, the situation is that, actually, the Minister is not allocated time; the National Party are allocated time. I understand there are 37 minutes left for the National Party at this stage. It\u2019s up to the National Party whips how that time is allocated, however, members can continue to make statements or ask questions. At this stage, the Minister is in the chair until 4 o\u2019clock. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u002242262ae1d88c60a7003d0747e8c33ee6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002242262ae1d88c60a7003d0747e8c33ee6\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:40)\u003C/span\u003E: When the Minister says \u201Cpossibly\u201D to main benefits being cut as a result of managerial policy, can she confirm she has made any attempt at actually checking whether that was the case or not, considering this issue has been in the news quite a bit over the past few weeks?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f8b5f710a4197c2832d1b75339745146\u0022\u003EHon Willow-Jean Prime\u003C/span\u003E: There\u2019s time, the whips just aren\u2019t giving it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022c8169b12d775cc116813f3c716977e52\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c8169b12d775cc116813f3c716977e52\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:41)\u003C/span\u003E: We have an allocation; I\u2019m not going to take time off following Ministers where there are Energy, Resources, Health, and Housing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u0022bb854b7ef9239f2f59aec73394f868a9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bb854b7ef9239f2f59aec73394f868a9\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:41)\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. I seek leave to grant 15 seconds of my time to the Minister so she can answer with yes or no answers, in case she needs to give brief answers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224a2e19e008394ae033c55725cc7b1e2d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: If you were going to do that, you would actually need to have a time number on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b23a550bac1d36ef345158b86d2f7177\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH\u003C/span\u003E: Fifteen seconds to give yes or no answers to simple questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f2ee7832aad7640c06f2919a42ddc2f4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought for the Green Party to allocate 15 seconds of their time in this debate to the National Party Minister. Is there any objection? There is no objection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002262e3e26380a9d49d4a292c267241e7c1\u0022\u003EHon Louise Upston\u003C/span\u003E: Doesn\u2019t mean I\u2019m going to use it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f6da8af9550e3c1d1f1c4d335cccfee\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH\u003C/span\u003E: When she said \u201Cpossibly\u201D to my question in relation to main benefits being suspended as a result of processing delays, has she made any efforts or sought advice from officials to clarify this?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u002282d70d4fc90b49c5ac59d4b8413d5ba1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002282d70d4fc90b49c5ac59d4b8413d5ba1\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:42)\u003C/span\u003E: I said there\u2019s a review under way. I appreciate there is lots of interest in this. There is a review under way\u2014I have said that. If members have questions, please put them into written parliamentary questions; I can give you full answers. I can\u2019t do that here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u0022b6859ce78e44911fdef5c3d763113b36\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b6859ce78e44911fdef5c3d763113b36\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:42)\u003C/span\u003E: Does the review include the cancellation of main benefits?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022 data-id=\u00222661ecf86a40939fed4e795e4e9b81c8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222661ecf86a40939fed4e795e4e9b81c8\u0022\u003EHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:42)\u003C/span\u003E: Further to that, does the review include the cancellation of main benefits, or is it only of superannuitants when she said earlier that this only applies to those receiving superannuation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dda7246265ca2b30786af7fbff00b070\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: It appears that this allocation has come to an end. The Minister is not answering. There appear to be no further questions or comments. The Minister of Health is the next Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00228a80b91497386510d3cd9cc03575e03e\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u2014Estimates Debate\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u002241796c213bd7e1ce08d5ee3d1400bc0f\u0022\u003EHealth\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022489fa6f41dde30bfc372eaad818d0a28\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the Minister\u2019s time in the chair has come to an end, as you see. We now have the Minister of Health. The Minister is available to speak on that portfolio from 4 p.m. until 5 p.m. I do note that the chairperson of the Health Committee is not here, however, one would expect that he will be here very shortly, in which case, he can speak to his portfolio\u2014unless another member here was going to speak to that? There appears not to be. We\u2019ll now go to questions in relation to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u0022942825b2e2acdf24797b3499d956c4de\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022942825b2e2acdf24797b3499d956c4de\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (15:44)\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, Mr Chair, this Minister is responsible for which part of Health?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e9b2e999f7e930549f371eb0bd4878f4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Feel free to answer that question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f78bee79fdf04cf15d226c9d9ce93693\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB\u003C/span\u003E: Which portfolio are we examining? All of it? [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EMinister Simmonds nods\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229ae853a5eb2f7acc54d09a31cc271b24\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB\u003C/span\u003E: OK, well, in that case, Minister, I\u2019m very interested in understanding, in terms of the Budget allocation, how much of that allocation went into recruitment, and in particular the costs of wages. As recent media has demonstrated, it appears that there has been, if not an actual freeze, clear directives on going slow on recruitment in the health space. We\u2019ve heard about the 54 fulltime-equivalent nurses, and we\u2019ve also recently seen media reports about the under-resourcing at below safe levels in a number of areas. I\u2019d be very interested in understanding whether part of the financial approach of the Government is, in essence, to have a go-slow on recruitment so that that can meet some of the shortfalls in budgeting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022200839810eb94155be7306bf21d350dd\u0022 data-id=\u00224322cb429c97d2c98575b4d90710a6a5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022200839810eb94155be7306bf21d350dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224322cb429c97d2c98575b4d90710a6a5\u0022\u003ESAM UFFINDELL (Chairperson of the Health Committee) (15:45)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019d like to briefly acknowledge the Health Committee, and I see my colleague Dr Ayesha Verrall over there, and other members, for all of the work that they have done on this Estimates process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe had a number of hearings with the Minister of Health, the Minister for Mental Health, the Associate Minister of Health with responsibilities for Pharmac, and the Minister for Seniors and Associate Minister of Health. We covered a number of topics over our hearings, including around the three-day postnatal stay\u2014I see Catherine Wedd in front of me; well done, Catherine, for your work in that space; on primary care; on the workforce; on M\u0101ori healthcare; and around the health infrastructure, including some new and upgraded hospitals, including in my electorate of Tauranga. That was very exciting. We discussed mental health, the funding for mental health and addiction services, the funding for youth-specific mental health services and Gumboot Friday, the introduction of the psychology assistant role, and the introduction of crisis recovery cafes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn our hearings with the Associate Minister of Health with responsibilities for Pharmac, we discussed a $1.8 billion Vote to purchase medicines for patients in the health system, funding for new medicines, and improved access for around 50,000 people. In the hearing with the Minister for Seniors with Associate Minister of Health responsibilities, we discussed smoking cessation and vaping and aged residential care. I\u2019d just like to thank all of the Ministers for participating in those hearings and all of the members of the committee for their hard work and questions and their input into this report. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022 data-id=\u002274617791949856d813f42c9411797d09\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002274617791949856d813f42c9411797d09\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (15:47)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair, and I do acknowledge the very good work done by my colleague as chair of the Health Committee. It\u2019s good to have the opportunity to return to the material in the Estimates hearing, because we have some additional information to consider now that it\u2019s been reported that the deficit for Health New Zealand for the financial year 2025-2026 was $350 million against an original budget of $200 million, and the budgeted deficit for the coming financial year is $475 million.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EClearly, my question to the Minister of Health is why is the deficit at Health New Zealand getting worse? Why do we see reported today Health New Zealand quoted in media saying that Health New Zealand has been allowed to run a deficit for longer to enable hospital delivery to be maintained, and then comments that \u201CHealth New Zealand and the Ministry of Health\u201D\u2014and this is reported in \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThe Post\u003C/span\u003E today\u2014\u201Care coordinating on an agreed future deficit reduction plan to return Health New Zealand to return Health New Zealand to break even. The timeframe and actions for this have not been finalised.\u201D? So a worsening deficit picture from what was expected for the last financial year, escalating in the current financial year, and then, it appears, no plan agreed between the Ministry of Health and Health New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u002208bb5573645848f5b25f6df55f32c7c1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002208bb5573645848f5b25f6df55f32c7c1\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (15:49)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to that question, and I appreciate the member\u2019s questions in relation to the Health New Zealand deficit path. Clearly, there\u2019s been some significant improvement over the term of this Government in relation to the deficit path for Health New Zealand. There has been an agreement to allow that deficit to continue for slightly longer in order for the focus to remain on the delivery of key health services, which are needed to meet the health targets.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWe are seeing year-on-year improvement against our health targets, which is positive and which is after years of decline. We are now seeing year-on-year improvement, which is a positive thing to be seeing for patients, particularly those on wait-lists for elective surgeries. That is making a big difference, however, there\u2019s still more work to do. We\u2019ve agreed with Health New Zealand for a slightly longer period of time to return to a break-even perspective, but the focus very much is on delivery of services.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022 data-id=\u00226ab17182439f4262901bd248d0527e3c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226ab17182439f4262901bd248d0527e3c\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (15:50)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Further to that, the reporting today on the deficit set out that, essentially, increases in general practice funding were paid for out of subsidies or transfers from the hospital and health services appropriation. There\u2019s this worrying situation in our hospitals at the moment where nursing recruitment is held at a fixed level, a hiring freeze, and then there\u2019s pressure to cut more money because the hospitals are being run at a deficit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI do not consider it to be, as the Health New Zealand spokesperson said to the press, a positive thing to be allowing the hospitals to run at a deficit in order to maintain services because, fundamentally, it points to either a Government intention to undertake more cuts or an inadequate funding level. I would like the Minister, returning to an item that he didn\u2019t address in my initial question, to outline what is intended to be cut in order to have the hospitals balance their books or Health New Zealand balance their books. If he won\u2019t give an outline there, does he have any intention to bail out the hospitals so that they can recommence hiring nurses? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u00227b2a771f14abae51e65f1636bd65611e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227b2a771f14abae51e65f1636bd65611e\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (15:52)\u003C/span\u003E: In response to the question, I mean, the number of issues that she\u2019s raised, I would point out that in accordance with the statement of performance expectations, the budget for hospital specialist services in 2026-27 has increased by $1.24 billion compared to 2025-26. We are putting significant additional funding into our hospitals and specialist services because we know how critically important that it is in order to deliver those services. The focus that we very much have and the expectation of Health New Zealand is that more is delivered for patients to focus on the key health targets that this Government has put in place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to the question in relation to front-line staff, as I mentioned on numerous occasions during question time, Health New Zealand is currently recruiting for 2,378 fulltime-equivalent nursing roles. Those are actively being recruited across Health New Zealand, including 475 nurses who have already accepted offers. Improving workforce on the front line is a key part of what this Government is focused on. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to the question around the transfer of funding between hospital specialist services and primary care, as outlined in that article, this is about ensuring that we can focus investment on areas which will actually reduce pressure on hospitals, such as in aged care. The deal which was done with aged care this year was around making sure that they can do weekend discharges from hospitals. I think that\u2019s a really positive step because, actually, our hospitals get incredibly busy, obviously, through the week, and then if patients aren\u2019t able to be discharged over the weekend\u2014Monday\u2019s typically the busiest day in a hospital\u2014there are not beds available. That\u2019s a really important step forward. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELikewise, the funding for palliative care. A significant uplift in funding for palliative care is really important so that palliative care can provide those services in the community and likewise take pressure off our hospitals. All of those investments are really important. At the same time, allowing Health New Zealand to run a deficit for longer means that they can continue to deliver more services and, ultimately, over time, they will work towards a balanced approach. But I would note the funding path that was agreed by this Government was set by the previous one when she was the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022 data-id=\u0022c3f09a24443692402a1bea10ccdf9162\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c3f09a24443692402a1bea10ccdf9162\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (15:55)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, that is not a wholly satisfactory answer. The Health New Zealand deficit, I mean, essentially, amounts to running the hospitals on Afterpay. That explains why hiring is so constrained in hospitals to the point where the last couple of weeks have seemed very difficult for hospitals to manage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECan the Minister shed any light on what advice he\u2019s received about addressing the deficit and what options there are for addressing this $475 million deficit? Is he planning further cuts in the data and digital space? Will there be further restrictions on hiring? What is the future of the maintenance budget? You know, $475 million having to be made up is not easy, even in a big organisation. In fact, as we started out this debate, we heard that the hospital deficit has got worse. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s been a lot of pain in the health system. A lot of people have lost their jobs. A lot of cuts; maintenance deferred. Yet the issue of the deficit is not under control. I think it is fair, with an election coming soon, to ask the health Minister what he is doing about this. Are we just letting the hospitals run more and more into deficit or is there a plan to either bail them out or to find a way of making them actually being able to provide the services they need and stop this hiring freeze?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u0022947b0fffb6751bce864eb55c796b1a19\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022947b0fffb6751bce864eb55c796b1a19\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (15:57)\u003C/span\u003E: I appreciate the member\u2019s questions. In terms of the budget for hospitals and specialist services, I mentioned, according to the statement of performance expectations, it\u2019s increased by $1.24 billion compared to 2025-26. That is a significant increase\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b74f1b6f3558503ed2fdb579b534e41e\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, and a third of that\u2019s gone on the deficit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002212df126eb11a65c0ed944d91b92ca89d\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014increase in funding\u2014no, that is around how much of the funding is that\u2019s available to spend. That is funding to spend for hospitals and specialist services. That is outlined in the statement of performance expectations. Our expectations are that that\u2019s very much\u2014as the member will be aware, when we came to Government the budget deficit was significantly larger. There\u2019s been a lot of work done to ensure that it gets into a better shape. However, the focus is on delivery of services.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m not going to stand here as the Minister of Health and say, \u201CActually, the focus has to be on balancing the books.\u201D, when we have waiting lists of people who need to be seen, following the years of those waiting lists growing under the previous Government. We need to get on top of those waiting lists and the focus is on service delivery, which is exactly what we\u2019re doing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of data and digital, I\u2019m pleased that in the Budget, there were two elements of investment in data and digital. One was around cyber security, which is correctly important for both our hospitals and the wider health system; secondly, also investment, in terms of a capital operating swap, which will allow Health New Zealand to progress a number of elements of the Health Digital Investment Plan. That\u2019s going to make a big difference for the front line, who work incredibly hard. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, just around recruitment, as I said earlier, Health New Zealand is currently recruiting. As at 14 August, 2,378 fulltime-equivalent nursing roles are actively being recruited to, and that includes 475 nurses who have accepted offers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022 data-id=\u0022d96cbe765f9af2336ef63bbcc8d64254\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d96cbe765f9af2336ef63bbcc8d64254\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (15:59)\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister tries to make a virtue of allowing Health New Zealand to run a deficit, but it is, essentially, pushing tough decisions for Health New Zealand into the future and not answering the question of if the Minister is so committed to continued service delivery, why hasn\u2019t he obtained, from the finance Minister, a bail out for the health system? That means that they\u2019d be able to return to normal hiring practices, the hiring freeze could end, and the cost pressure investments could mean that the health system services could grow in order to address the wait-list issue, which we\u2019re all concerned about, but also to make sure that services just grow in line with population growth and with the needs of our ageing population. So why is it that he\u2019s accepted that health services need to go into hock rather than have additional funds appropriated for the health system? Of course, you know, we do hope to be able to see the health system get out of this period of cuts that it\u2019s been going through and be able to actually get on with the business, but with this deficit hanging over them, the prospect of hiring freezes just stretches on into the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ESo can the Minister please answer: why hasn\u2019t the Government bailed out the health system so that it can actually get on and address need? Secondly, if he thinks that cuts can be made internally and there doesn\u2019t need to be a contribution from the centre in order to address Health New Zealand\u2019s deficit, well, can he say what those are? Why is he so confident he doesn\u2019t need that money? What other savings that he\u2019s yet to make\u2014him and his colleague Dr Reti, who preceded him, that are yet to happen\u2014could return Health New Zealand to surplus?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u00223d9f644d4b37b5dd83c789ac7df1db92\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223d9f644d4b37b5dd83c789ac7df1db92\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (16:01)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, our focus is on cutting the wait-lists and reducing wait times for patients, which ballooned under the previous Government. That\u2019s exactly what she left behind, including a much bigger deficit, which we\u2019ve had to address. The reality of what happened in terms of recruitment when she was the Minister: the number of fulltime-equivalent doctors fell from 10,093 in March 2023 to 9,962 in September 2023. Since then, it\u2019s improved to 10,905 fulltime-equivalent doctors working on the front line in our health system. That is significant progress that has happened under this Government, under our watch, due to the investments that we\u2019ve made to improve health outcomes for New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022 data-id=\u00226f5e4d04064c1ae86d3774dc3176202f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226f5e4d04064c1ae86d3774dc3176202f\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (16:02)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Well, that\u2019s a remarkable diversion, isn\u2019t it? I think what we\u2019ve just had is a Government who likes to give out lectures on fiscal responsibility basically admit that they\u2019re running the health system into deficit to make sure that the things the Minister of Health cares about happen, like providing hospital services. They\u2019re just putting it all on the credit card, putting healthcare on Afterpay. The Minister had no serious answer for that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo Health New Zealand\u2019s running up a deficit. He won\u2019t tell this committee why he\u2019s so confident that there doesn\u2019t need to be any additional funding put in\u2014he won\u2019t tell this committee. Apparently, he\u2019s got this magical thinking about how he\u2019s going to magically get rid of this deficit without any further compromise for services, and yet on this side of the House, we heard his comments last week in question time: only 54 nurses hired over two years\u201454 nurses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EYou know what? I was doorknocking in Wellington North on the weekend, and I opened the door to a gentleman who says, \u201COh, I know you: you got the Minister of Health to admit there were only 54 nurses hired in the last two years.\u201D It does seem to be something that\u2019s reaching out to everyday in New Zealanders and causing considerable concern, so I\u2019m not sure why the Minister won\u2019t answer on this important issue of the deficit. Instead, he\u2019s got some glib confidence that he doesn\u2019t need any additional money for the centre and yet is unable to say how he\u2019s actually going to address it. I mean, it does seem like the Minister really does not care for what credibility he might have as the manager of the health system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u0022dc3c83be3420309b45cf6d73b2ed4118\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dc3c83be3420309b45cf6d73b2ed4118\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (16:04)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, there is significant work under way to focus on the health targets across the health system. They went backwards under the previous Government; they\u2019re making year-on-year improvement under this Government. There is a significant focus on hospital and specialist services, as I\u2019ve outlined. In terms of decisions around future funding, there will be, obviously, decisions made as part of the Budget 2027 process, and a pathway will be agreed around the funding going forward. But, ultimately, the focus very much this year, which is what the Estimates is about, is about continued service delivery, continued improvement in performance\u2014that\u2019s what we\u2019re focused on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u00224c80f6082b58e219205fff477892b099\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224c80f6082b58e219205fff477892b099\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (16:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Now that the Minister of Health has repeatedly talked about targets, can he answer why he has agreed, and the Minister for Mental Health has agreed, to count the wait times for specialist services in mental health for youth but is not going to count the declined referrals? In fact, why are declined referrals not counted across the whole of Health New Zealand services, except, apparently, in the South Island? How is that a complete picture of wait times and targets if we don\u2019t know how many people are not being able to be referred?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ECan he also answer as to where and what other services people are being referred to, particularly in the mental health space, where I have a document that shows that between 1 July 2024 and 31 March 2025, there was a total of 3,681 declined referrals. This has come from Health New Zealand, but it fails to say where they have been referred to when it comes to mental health.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u002216dd2d0c2035d7f5f34f6fea2aa97c09\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002216dd2d0c2035d7f5f34f6fea2aa97c09\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (16:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, there\u2019s nothing more comfortable than consistency, as that member reaches for her top drawer and gets her question out at every Estimates we\u2019ve done for two years now, and every annual review, actually. I\u2019m happy to confirm for the committee: when you look at youth referrals, the decline rate is 11 percent. I\u2019ll make it very clear to the committee: that doesn\u2019t mean that when a young person is declined, nothing happens. It is actually the expectation that the most appropriate service is found for that young person. What I would say on top of that: only 3 percent of those referrals are declined because a service is unavailable; 97 percent of times a service is available. If the referral is declined, it\u2019s because a clinical judgment is made that there is another service best appropriate for that young person, and we connect them with that appropriate service.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u0022cc54c1909f40c88cdc65dcc0aa27bc23\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cc54c1909f40c88cdc65dcc0aa27bc23\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (16:07)\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Minister for Mental Health please tell the committee how the declined referrals that are going to other services\u2014where that information is being collected and stored, so that we can scrutinise that. Secondly, where there are declined referrals being made for clinical reasons, he talked about the expectation. Are they always being made by clinicians, or are there others in Health New Zealand making those decisions at any point?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022db1fe93c006bee46ce7726da60ef5da4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022db1fe93c006bee46ce7726da60ef5da4\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (16:07)\u003C/span\u003E: Clearly, ChatGPT wasn\u2019t working today. Look, in a health system there is no shortage of health information. I\u2019d actually put it to you that in a health system, the opposite is true; we have too much information. I can assure the member that not only do we record declines\u2014because, in fact, that\u2019s why I can come to the committee and say declines are 11 percent and only 3 percent are due to service unavailability. Yes, of course they are a clinical decision, because I would encourage the member to go and visit services where they have a published criteria of the type of referral criteria they would accept for a young person.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022114d154fd1ed27d0b8cf4e6fe4cfc31c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022114d154fd1ed27d0b8cf4e6fe4cfc31c\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:08)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to check with the Minister on, I guess, in some ways, aged residential care and also in-home care. Now, it is heartening to see an increase\u2014though, one would say, not sufficient\u2014of a 4 percent uplift in aged residential care. However, other than the mileage increase, we have not seen any other significant increase for in-home support and for home and community care providers. Now, we have seen, both in terms of the latest ministerial advisory group report but also in terms of the reports from the Helen Clark Foundation, etc. on the desperate need for us to invest more in home and community care. So could the Minister please elucidate this committee on why home and community care has not received any significant upgrade in this year\u2019s Budget, other than mileage?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022 data-id=\u0022fe2099ff147ffc1b863614717e7bfc4a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fe2099ff147ffc1b863614717e7bfc4a\u0022\u003EHon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health) (16:09)\u003C/span\u003E: The contract negotiations for each year go through a quite a thorough, robust process, and I think just recently the in-home community care budget contract has been finalised and those uplifts will be communicated. The budget uplifts, I think, for in-home community care\u2014funding for the support services has been a 3 percent increase in 2025. The total funding increase for 2025 was a $140 million top-up to the annual increase, so there have been funding uplifts each year for the in-home and community care services.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI would highlight that that is the importance of the ministerial advisory group: to ensure that we have a thorough and robust process around how those services are applied. I\u2019ve been very clear in my position that it is a critical component of the aged-care system to ensure that there are as many options available for older New Zealanders to be able to live where they want to, for as long as they choose to. That illuminates the point that it is \u201Cright care, right place, right time\u201D. There has been another component, which was the in-between travel allowance that was applied in April 2026 to offset the fuel cost, which has been retained. That was about a 30 percent increase applied to workers that rely on the in-between travel component. So there have been funding uplifts; there will continue to be funding uplifts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe contract process is really important in this, but beyond the actual contracting process, it is really important that we recognise that the system is a critical component of our aged-care system. Therefore, we are very focused on ensuring that we have a comprehensive answer to this situation that is a long-term, sustainable component. That is about the other areas that we have been applying, which is important in this space, which is the case-mix model contracting, which was rolled out in the South Island. The case-mix model allows for greater flexibility; effectively, it\u2019s a bulk-funding system which ensures that the services are delivered. That was first rolled out in the South Island. It is being rolled out through the North Island. This is really that opportunity to ensure that those care workers are able to put the person at the heart of the care. It is shifting from that very fee-for-service model to an outcome-based contracting model, which has helped significantly. Those that are working in this space have found it greatly beneficial. Not just for the workforce themselves but for the clients that use the service, it has proven very beneficial. It has been, as I said, rolled out initially in the South Island. It will continue to be rolled out in the North Island, and that was the process under the contract reviews that have been completed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn short, there have been contracting uplifts, there have been funding uplifts, but, more importantly and most significantly, this Government has invested in a comprehensive solution focus, which is what the ministerial advisory group report has given 40\u00A0recommendations around\u2014what the system needs to look like into the future to be sustainable; but, more importantly, as the Minister alluded to earlier, to take some pressure off the system. Those practical components around allowing the system to be funded to receive discharges from hospital over the weekend to actually improve the outcomes and take pressure off the hospital system are, I think, an important component of this solution that we\u2019re putting in place. Really, I recommend that we continue to work in a very bipartisan approach to how we deliver these changes to the aged-care system into the future. We have engaged very closely with the in-home and community support care workers and the aged residential care providers to ensure that we are meeting solutions that are effective into the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022 data-id=\u002229c6fcf6e8e4596f7babdb2cb7a4c10d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002229c6fcf6e8e4596f7babdb2cb7a4c10d\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (16:14)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I thank the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello for that contribution and, being as it is an Estimates hearing on the Estimates and noting in the Minister\u2019s recent press release that advice has been sought on implementation of the ministerial advisory group\u2019s recommendations, I wonder if the Minister can expand on the immediate term\u2014as in, forecast period\u2014fiscal impacts of those recommendations, and what type of implementation advice is being sought. Is advice relevant to health commitments in the next two Budgets being sought?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022 data-id=\u0022ae1b5f2033810e2394511cadd15a2095\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ae1b5f2033810e2394511cadd15a2095\u0022\u003EHon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health) (16:15)\u003C/span\u003E: As we\u2019ve been very clear about, the 40 recommendations are very robust, and they are quite detailed. There is no commitment at this point. The advice that we are seeking is \u201CHow would implementation work? What are those future states looking like?\u201D\u2014you know, the timelines under which they could be applied. We will, of course, always look at opportunities to improve the system through future Budgets, but we aren\u2019t making any commitment to the recommendations made. There is a lot of work, and the ministry is looking at advice around what those recommendations mean and how they would be applied into the future. That is a very comprehensive piece of work, and the ministry has started already on looking at that advice, but we\u2019re not making any commitments into future Budgets at this point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022 data-id=\u0022c16893f3a9fe1f2179c678efc3ec3eaa\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c16893f3a9fe1f2179c678efc3ec3eaa\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (16:16)\u003C/span\u003E: Thanks, Mr Chair, and I wholeheartedly agree with the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello\u2019s comment that it is a comprehensive piece of work, with many detailed recommendations there. Could the Minister clarify, then\u2014and I appreciate there has been work on a bipartisan basis, with the Opposition being kept informed of the advisory group\u2019s direction\u2014is the implementation advice likely to come back to Government before the election, or after the election? I note the Minister\u2019s comment that Government hasn\u2019t taken a position on that; is that because the Government is waiting for that implementation advice before taking a position on the advisory group\u2019s recommendations?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022 data-id=\u00223044a3f7d648b93e80bd198d2cbb62fd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223044a3f7d648b93e80bd198d2cbb62fd\u0022\u003EHon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health) (16:17)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, fundamentally, we have put a relatively high-pressure timeline on the ministry to report back in early 2027, which is what we said in the media announcement. How much time that gives the ministry to answer all the questions that need to be answered, even to the extent they will be able to provide the level of advice needed to make those decisions\u2014we wouldn\u2019t be expecting to see anything in this term of Government regarding that advice, but we will continue to consider all of those recommendations moving forward.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI think it\u2019s clear in the report that they have suggested virtually a 10-year implementation timeline around all the recommendations they put in place. We know this is not a quick fix; therefore, we\u2019re prioritising those recommendations, looking at how that would look, what those impacts are, and what advice they can put back within the time frame that we\u2019ve given. We\u2019re in the ministry\u2019s hands, and I\u2019m confident that they will give us a detailed consideration. This is something that we have said: categorically, we need bipartisan agreement and support. We\u2019ll continue to ensure that we engage to ensure we deliver the very best outcomes into the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d92a09db28c44070bbfdcc9f0e6f3cca\u0022 data-id=\u00223267f704f1c0775e0e350604f5f2ffe2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d92a09db28c44070bbfdcc9f0e6f3cca\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223267f704f1c0775e0e350604f5f2ffe2\u0022\u003EJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) (16:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Following on from those questions, my question to the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello is: has she heard any reports that the time frame that was given to the ministerial advisory group to put their report together was a fairly truncated period of time, considering the complexity of looking across the sector and working out what those recommendations might be? And did she feel that was too short for the work that they needed to do?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThen, also, looking forward in terms of the time frame that she feels is necessary for the ministry to come back now and provide advice on those recommendations, is it important that she takes the time necessary to get this right?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022 data-id=\u0022654a6656ddcc09c7a73c2487c34f39d3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022654a6656ddcc09c7a73c2487c34f39d3\u0022\u003EHon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health) (16:20)\u003C/span\u003E: The ministerial advisory group was put under a lot of time pressure to deliver a report in the six months. They worked incredibly hard. I have said quite sincerely that I\u2019m incredibly grateful for the professionalism and expertise that they offered into this report. The advantage that we had is that the ministerial advisory group wasn\u2019t starting from ground zero; there was the Health Committee inquiry, which had produced an incredible piece of work with clear recommendations as well. We had the funding model review that had already been reported. There was a lot of information that the advisory group was able to call on to progress this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI think that this is one of those instances where there is a lot of work. There are 40 recommendations to consider. I think that the time line that we\u2019ve given to report back is sufficient to continue providing us a good direction of travel and a way forward into the future. So I think that the time allocated, although tight, was useful, and I think the time for reporting back is relevant to what we\u2019re trying to achieve at this stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u00226445b14f1bd526c1864f585c01752407\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226445b14f1bd526c1864f585c01752407\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (16:21)\u003C/span\u003E: You might recall, Mr Chair, around this time last year, there were a number of providers of mental health and addiction services who were really worried about their existence because they didn\u2019t have contracts and were therefore not able to access funding. So particularly for small ones that had been going for a number of years, it was a bit of a dog\u2019s breakfast. I recall the Minister at the time being unhappy with his officials and saying that this wasn\u2019t going to happen again and he\u2019d like to see longer-term contracts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ELooking at this year, I saw in the media recently and we\u2019ve got information that a number of the providers have not received contracts or hadn\u2019t by 1 July. This is to do with moving to longer-term contracts. In fact, I believe the Minister\u2019s office told one of the reporters that some of them could expect their contracts in November. I\u2019m just wondering if the Minister could please clarify how many of those providers are waiting on contracts to be completed, how many didn\u2019t have completed contracts and signed contracts on 1 July, whether that caused any funding problems, and what his attitude is towards officials this year? Is it their fault again or is it something that perhaps should have been sorted out earlier?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022e6124ac03ac4f7b4fd2238b616bd3aee\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e6124ac03ac4f7b4fd2238b616bd3aee\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (16:22)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I agree with that last member\u2014it should have been sorted out earlier. It was probably six years under a last Government that sat on their hands and did nothing. That\u2019s why, under this Government, we know we\u2019ve increased the mental health and addiction ring-fence. It\u2019ll close to top $3 billion this year\u2014a third of that, $1 billion, is what we call the funded sector: NGO, community, and iwi. So 80 percent of them were on single-year contracts\u2014that\u2019s tough, if you work in those services and you\u2019ve got a mortgage and you need more certainty. We\u2019ve actually reversed that now to give 80 percent of community and NGO services multi-year contracts\u201480 percent. We did that. It shows you don\u2019t actually need to spend more money sometimes to make a real difference. Not only that, but in another area, we didn\u2019t actually spend any more money; we just changed the settings, and we\u2019ve seen an 82 percent increase in providers offering ADHD assessment and a 44 percent increase in providers offering ADHD prescriptions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022 data-id=\u00226b7c8c6dd63f67e206a2957bc0470399\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226b7c8c6dd63f67e206a2957bc0470399\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON (Green) (16:24)\u003C/span\u003E: T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Mr Chair. I\u2019m wanting to ask the Minister of Health, in relation to M\u0101ori health and the hauora M\u0101ori appropriation, and knowing that we saw a loss or a reduction in funding for the last period, but we had heard from Health New Zealand officials that, actually, the risk around the reduction in funding would be mitigated by underspend from the previous year, which is heartening\u2014it\u2019s lovely to hear. What I am keen to understand from the Minister\u2014because, oftentimes when talking about hauora M\u0101ori and the gains being made for hauora M\u0101ori, we often end up talking about immunisation and Tamariki Ora and the way that hauora M\u0101ori have done really well in the immunisation of our p\u0113p\u0113, which is a great win. But beyond the M\u0101ori immunisation targets and the mahi being done there, can the Minister please give us an overview of some of the tangible delivery that the hauora M\u0101ori appropriation has been delivering within communities across Aotearoa to reduce inequalities for iwi M\u0101ori?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022 data-id=\u0022e8152f675a672cdc958045c73b5f7fa7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e8152f675a672cdc958045c73b5f7fa7\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (16:25)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I\u2019d like to ask questions about the maintenance spend and infrastructure spend in our hospitals. The Health New Zealand infrastructure plan has been now quite some time ago, but it remains unclear what the funding commitment for that 10-year piece of work would be or how much of it is currently funded. Just to pre-empt where the Minister may choose to go with this answer, I\u2019m not looking for a repeat of every press release he\u2019s ever issued about a segment of a capital works project\u2014that would be extremely tedious. But really, we\u2019ve had the Infrastructure Commission set a trajectory for health infrastructure that appeared to be very well considered. We\u2019ve seen commitments that have not come close\u2014it\u2019s approximately half of that trajectory suggested by the Infrastructure Commission. The infrastructure plan, while being helpful, is a set of PowerPoint slides and has one page on the hospital building programme.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWe all in this House repeatedly talk about how we want infrastructure to be bipartisan, but it would be great if we could hear a little more than this about the future trajectory for infrastructure funding and how that matches up against the needs that are identified in the infrastructure plan. I am aware of advice that the Minister has received that states the infrastructure plan is currently not fully funded and that what can be delivered on the level of funding is markedly reduced. If we are to have sensible bipartisan conversations about infrastructure, it should be that the Minister is able to share information on elements of what is a 10-year piece of work being undertaken by the health system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u0022d4a54575ab032259e8d9a54fc6f5580e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d4a54575ab032259e8d9a54fc6f5580e\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (16:28)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m advised by my whips I\u2019ve got no time left to be able to answer questions, but I would briefly articulate\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251c3668a03eaef2f325fa73bc36bb13a\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, why are you looking so sad?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002218750eab75f4d4724a01ee7f00eaa4df\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: No, I\u2019m not. I\u2019m answering the questions to say that in terms of the infrastructure plan, the answer to your question is that the plan has been published. There are obviously business cases under way which would look at the different funding that is required. Each Budget obviously allocates capital\u2014this Budget did, the previous Budget did.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn terms of hauora M\u0101ori appropriation of investment, the answer is there is, of course, additional investment. There are sometimes underspends which get transferred forward. The focus, though, is on delivering results.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225a02ce4f3f9d23eac8054beb5241facb\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Now, we may have reached a situation we met with the last Minister, where the Minister in the chair has run out of time. This debate is set to go through to 15.42. It does represent an opportunity for any party in the House to speak, so it\u2019s up to members how they use their time. Byzantine use of timings may be required through whips and others here, but the call now goes to Ingrid Leary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u002247fd6108890e913124b7c25e6a28de9d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002247fd6108890e913124b7c25e6a28de9d\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (16:29)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, Mr Chair, it\u2019s interesting that the Minister for Mental Health talked about the ring-fence and seemed so confident in his numbers about the increase in the ring-fenced funding; because, actually, Official Information Act requested documents show his own officials questioning whether the mental health ring-fenced funding is actually reaching front-line services. If I look at what the correspondence shows, it says that officials can\u2019t fully reconcile financial summaries with the underlying spreadsheets. It says they question how much confidence they should have in the underlying district data used to report mental health spending. They talk about anomalies, including a $50 million difference between budgeted and actual provider payments for hauora M\u0101ori services; significant variation in alcohol and drug service spending compared with the plan; and a $61 million shift between mental health appropriations during the year. The officials also confirmed that the mental health \u201Cring-fence\u201D is not a protected budget but the minimum amount Health New Zealand is expected to spend.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe reason this is significant is because it means that the Government can\u2019t actually demonstrate what services were delivered, where the money actually went, and whether ring-fenced mental health service funding was reaching payments. That\u2019s really important, and if we look at one particular example, there\u2019s an official document that has the ministry officials saying that a case in point is with the Gumboot Friday funding wherefore, for some of the accounting, it\u2019s included in the ring-fence and for other parts of the Health New Zealand accounting it is not. My question\u2014and it\u2019s such a shame the Minister won\u2019t be able to respond, but he\u2019s speaking so confidently about additional money into mental health when we know that front-line services are struggling, we know many of them are cut, and we know that there\u2019s been a hiring freeze, and now we\u2019ve got documents that show they cannot track the ring-fence to the spend and where those services are being delivered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019d just like to put that question here in the committee for people to consider, because I don\u2019t think that this committee should have the confidence that the Minister does that there\u2019s additional funding for mental health.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022 data-id=\u0022fe92497c27ac853b63ca6f1597f38e5e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fe92497c27ac853b63ca6f1597f38e5e\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (16:31)\u003C/span\u003E: Fifty-four\u201454. Only 54 nurses hired across two years in our public health system. That is the number that this debate keeps dancing around. We\u2019ve had discussions on the number of nurses in the hiring pipeline, the number of nurses hired by Labour\u2014but that spilled over into the period of the first three months National were in Government\u2014we\u2019ve had discussions of other occupational classes, but the number that the Minister of Health does not want to repeat, because he was made to last week, is 54. In a big country like ours, where 29,000 nurses work in the health system, only 54 more for two whole years, as our population grows, as people get sicker, as wait-lists grow, as emergency departments bulge\u2014just 54.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhy? Because this Government has got the health system running on the credit card. It\u2019s in debt. They have cut funding to the health system; they have made debt pile up against it so that the health system is forced to cut and cut and cut. What have they done? Well, they\u2019ve frozen the hiring of nurses, and there\u2019s some complicated shell game going on at Health New Zealand where they only let people be recruited into so-called funded vacancies once people have been delayed in their hiring for so long, so these gaps in the health system move from one ward to the next but the theme is the same: it\u2019s understaffing. If you\u2019re waiting in a queue in an emergency department, if you\u2019re waiting for an operation, the reason for that is because this Government has not funded the health system properly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EYep, they\u2019ll tell you stories about how they\u2019ve hired X number of people, but they don\u2019t count the ones who have left. They\u2019ll tell you stories about how much extra money they got, but they won\u2019t tell you about the cuts they\u2019re also making Health New Zealand make. Well, let me tell you this: New Zealand cannot afford three more years of cuts like this to the health system, of repeated dissembling and misinformation about what\u2019s happening with the important issue of nursing hiring. Just remember what we were told before the last election: no cuts to front-line services. Since then, repeated denials; repeated denials that there\u2019s a hiring freeze in place. Well, the facts don\u2019t lie: there are only 54.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAt this question time earlier today, we went around the country, didn\u2019t we, because in parts of New Zealand, actually, the number of nurses in your hospital has shrunk. If you\u2019re waiting for care in Middlemore Hospital, if you\u2019re waiting for care in Auckland hospital, in Waikato Hospital, well, the number of total nurses employed in those hospitals has actually gone down. This Government has no reason to have the trust of the New Zealand people when it comes to an issue like how they are resourcing the health system, because the fact is that they\u2019ve been talking about everything else other than the actual number of nurses that they\u2019ve employed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EYou know what really upsets me about this? What really upsets me is the fact that this whole thing\u2014this whole shell game\u2014is being used to lock out young people, many young women, who have trained in nursing. It might have been during the pandemic that they saw our country struggling and needing more nurses and they thought, \u201CWhat could I do about that? Well, I\u2019ll train in my community to become a nurse.\u201D, and now those young people cannot get jobs in New Zealand, cannot\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002248ce26e54d83406399b875df20400dec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224eb47140b7c7357f7f6820ee92648f39\u0022\u003EAndy Foster\u003C/span\u003E: What you could do is mandate half of them out of activity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227a49c0a0ecfce1f05a09838f427bb3ad\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL\u003C/span\u003E: I won\u2019t take it from the anti-immigrant party when they won\u2019t\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002248ce26e54d83406399b875df20400dec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022be45600a060d8068f8668e5c7238effa\u0022\u003EAndy Foster\u003C/span\u003E: Well, why have you mandated some of your own nurses out of being able to do their job? That\u2019s what you did.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000530\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222a6e1a07b3a65687d886b36db610151a\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014stand up for New Zealanders not being able to get jobs here. Absolutely ridiculous. Those young people trained to help their country, and they are locked out of jobs in the New Zealand health system because of the hiring freeze that is in place under this Government. They should be able to get a job helping their community here\u2014the job they trained to do, that they\u2019re qualified to do, that they can do better than anyone else. We know that when we hire our own graduates, they\u2019re far more likely to stay, but what does this Government do? Well, they\u2019ll talk about anything else. They\u2019ll talk about how they\u2019ve hired half of them, and then they make the other ones wait in order to get a job later on in the year. You know, they\u2019re never just straight-up about what they\u2019re doing. It\u2019s always some other thing. They\u2019ll just talk about some other point, because they don\u2019t want you to know the truth. The truth is that there\u2019s a hiring freeze on at Health New Zealand, that our young people are blocked from getting jobs in there, and that we cannot afford three more years of this Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022 data-id=\u00222f979fd4e17edda82945f07235d65444\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222f979fd4e17edda82945f07235d65444\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON (Green) (16:36)\u003C/span\u003E: I really want to reflect back on hauora M\u0101ori services again, because as I spoke to previously, we have had funding cuts in hauora M\u0101ori, and with the loss of Te Aka Whai Ora, we have now heard and we have seen in the recent report from the Public Service Association the fact that our hauora M\u0101ori services required the sign-off of the CEO for any new roles into positions. I just want to share the fact that I\u2019m, like, aghast. We\u2019ve heard this in the northern region; there were panels set up for our region and then the roles were going to go up to the panel and then they\u2019ve got to ask the panel for these roles to be appointed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to reflect on the kaum\u0101tua role in the Regional Rangatahi Adolescent Inpatient Service: it took 25 weeks to appoint that. M\u0101ori peer specialist support services in mental health and addictions in Waitemat\u0101: that took seven weeks. Smokefree facilitator: for me up in Tai Tokerau just recently, in mid-2025, it took 12 weeks to finally get approved.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo with these types of gaps that are happening in the system, we get stress. We can hear the stress; we can see the stress. When the kaimahi are talking to us out in community about the stresses, it took the report to finally lift the lid, when we know that there had been budget cuts across the board, particularly with the hauora M\u0101ori focus, and then these cost-saving issues have come up whereby we\u2019ve been told, \u201CNo, there\u2019s kaimahi, there\u2019s nothing wrong, there\u2019s no freezes.\u201D Well, actually, we\u2019ve heard, for example, in the northern region, for us in Tai Tokerau, that we have limits in the way that we can appoint full-time equivalents.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThese are some of the concerns that are coming through constantly but now have been validated. So I thank the Public Service Association for bringing this to light, because in talking with kaimahi as of last week\u2014as of last week\u2014in the hospital, they said they are short-staffed, they are stressed, and they need support.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut what can we do? What can we do if regional funding panels or these appointment panels are being established and they are the ones who tick off what positions get filled? There are limits; we\u2019re hearing there are limits, and now we\u2019re seeing the limits. This is my p\u0101tai to us as a House as to what we can do to genuinely work together to establish a health system that is stable, that is well resourced, that puts people and wellbeing first across the board, whether you\u2019re rural or urban, so that we all have the ability to access timely, quality healthcare.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo that\u2019s what the Green Party is asking. Unfortunately, the Minister can\u2019t reply, but we\u2019ll take our time to be able to articulate these concerns, because it happened yesterday; it\u2019s still happening today. What are the assurances that we will see the necessary staff filled in these positions that are much needed across the regions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022 data-id=\u002221324d5fb6ab8006fc8af498e345ae58\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002221324d5fb6ab8006fc8af498e345ae58\u0022\u003EHon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health) (16:39)\u003C/span\u003E: I mean, 54, I think, is the number of times you say something over and over again and maybe that will convince everybody that you\u2019re right. The question has been answered repeatedly, that there are 1,600 full-time equivalents additional in the nursing staff.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs of 14 August, there were 2,378 nursing roles actively being recruited, including 475 nurses that have accepted offers\u2014this is the reality. Then we have, again\u2014recounted repeatedly\u2014the number of additional doctors. This idea that we can say things in this House and suddenly they become true is just inappropriate. It is wrong to suggest that we have this crisis, that we have funding cuts, all of these things, when we know that this is the Government that actually delivered targets, and accountability, and measures, and performance tracking to ensure that we are doing exactly what my colleague in the Green Party said, which is delivering services for the people\u2014putting the people at the heart of the solution and saying, \u201CWhat can we do better?\u201D This is exactly what this system is doing. We are delivering outcomes. We are continuing to deliver outcomes. What is important is what the impact of this is. Throwing money around is not a solution; delivering outcomes is a solution.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAcross the health system, we have invested. We have invested in mental health, we have invested in aged care, we have invested in ambulance services, we have invested in helicopters\u2014we have delivered things that the previous Government did not deliver, because we see the entire system in its entirety, and this is what we are delivering. We are actually delivering outcomes. We are improving. This is not a quick fix\u2014of course it\u2019s not; there are a lot of things to be done\u2014but to say that we can walk around a hospital and tell people that 54 nurses are all that have been appointed is not the facts. The facts are that we have increased the nursing staff, we have increasing doctor numbers, and we have actually resolved the issues at the heart of our system because we have put in practical measures. We have put in accountability. We have put in targets\u2014that were removed\u2014to ensure that what we spend money on is delivering the outcomes that New Zealanders need for a good health service. This is what is occurring in our health system. This is what needs to be done: to actually have some sensible investment to deliver a sensible outcome that actually puts the person at the heart.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen we do things that are practical, when we do things that are common-sense, when we do things that are right, that is driving the accountability that puts the patient at the heart of the system. That is what health is for: to ensure that people get better, that people get well, and, most importantly, that we actually try and get people out of hospital, back home, and recovering as quickly as possible. That is the investment in medicines, that is the early diagnosis, that is the access to treatments, and that is the investment in rural health. Those are all of the practical things that this Government has delivered to ensure we get a system that works, that is comprehensive, and that is about the people we are trying to serve. I think that this continuing narrative about how dire the situation is\u2014yes, we are in the middle of winter; yes, we have had a huge workload put on our people. But the fact is that we have invested. This concept of budget cuts\u2014this concept of \u201CWe\u2019ve cut back\u201D\u2014is just not played out. We have seen significant investment in aged care. We have seen nearly $490\u00A0million invested into the aged-care system since we\u2019ve been in Government. That\u2019s nearly $2.5\u00A0billion now being spent on aged care.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe have developed good investment systems. We will continue to do that\u2014the work is not yet finished\u2014but ensuring that we continue to drive accountability to our health system is critically important. We will continue to do that, because we have the practical, common-sense solutions to deliver a better system overall.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022 data-id=\u0022a864ba33f0566aeb83af9712920fd9a8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a864ba33f0566aeb83af9712920fd9a8\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (16:44)\u003C/span\u003E: The practical improvements that many New Zealanders would love to see would be a reduction in the household bills they have to pay, and that includes healthcare services. When I knock on doors around this area, it is the same thing I hear from door to door to door: people pay too much for their everyday items. In fact, in this area, they pay the highest GP costs in the country. Costs for GPs have gone up 15 percent under this Government. Ambulance costs have gone up to over $125 per ambulance callout. Of course, the Government willingly put up prescription charges on everyday people. I couldn\u2019t think of anything that\u2019s more of a tax on being sick than the amount you have to pay for your prescriptions. New Zealanders cannot afford three more years of these escalating healthcare costs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s what\u2019s happening under this Government. They refuse to fund the system, and therefore the community providers\u2014whether they\u2019re general practice, whether they\u2019re aged care\u2014have to put up their bills, on to people. That\u2019s what we\u2019ve seen under this Government. That\u2019s why there\u2019s more pain in your back pocket: because of the underfunding of the everyday services that New Zealanders need and depend on. There is nothing in these health Estimates that\u2019s going to ease the burden on New Zealanders in terms of cost, either this year or in coming years. The Associate Minister of Health in this debate has refused to give any indication that she\u2019s going to take up some recommendations for a report that might help low-income people access aged care in the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf you\u2019re struggling, if you\u2019re doing it tough, you\u2019re not going to get funding for access to services; that is all being cut back. New Zealanders cannot afford three more years of National.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002247e9e28631f9c76b455a22a18cba979d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the time for the Minister in the chair has come to an end. We now have the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Resources, and the Ministers are available to speak to that portfolio.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00226023de720e4fb4a5153bbc2def44da14\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u2014Estimates Debate\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u002259acaa1194f6113944a9a0affed56bc1\u0022\u003EEnergy\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022 data-id=\u00227424a5d96a9b3af0c72149cb098538f3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227424a5d96a9b3af0c72149cb098538f3\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram) (16:47)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. There were a number of areas that were covered off with the Minister for Energy when he came to the select committee to talk about Vote Energy. One of the first areas that I\u2019d just like to ask the Minister around is around liquefied natural gas (LNG) and the LNG procurement that is going ahead. We heard the Prime Minister and Winston Peters saying quite different things in the House today in terms of the future of the LNG terminal, but the first thing to ascertain from the Minister is to see if there\u2019s any change in his position around whether or not it is the intention that the Government will sign a commercial contract with a provider before the election.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u0022b026ae7870b201720931322ed5b5a254\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b026ae7870b201720931322ed5b5a254\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (16:47)\u003C/span\u003E: The procurement is going through a procurement process at the moment. Of course, that is well under way. The Government\u2019s intention is to sign a contract as soon as possible in order to ensure that we provide the energy security that New Zealand needs. We\u2019re not going to leave this country high and dry like the previous Government did, which let New Zealand have the energy crisis 2024 with wholesale prices going through the roof, businesses shutting down\u2014we\u2019re not going to let that happen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022 data-id=\u00223acb708289f19fd0170b9424352a900b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223acb708289f19fd0170b9424352a900b\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram) (16:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, will the Minister for Energy be taking the finalised procurement details back to Cabinet before the contract is signed?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u0022b312d40c40082168daa3420c413cb45e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b312d40c40082168daa3420c413cb45e\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (16:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Significant decisions such as this will of course go through Cabinet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022 data-id=\u0022a5a08686584de3e94c3516c9710b7d56\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a5a08686584de3e94c3516c9710b7d56\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram) (16:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was interested that the Minister for Energy seemed to be indicating that this decision around liquefied natural gas (LNG) was in the best interests of New Zealanders and our energy system. Of course, that is not what anybody else, really, except this Government or the oil and gas sector have claimed is the case. We saw only recently that the Ombudsman forced the Government to release modelling and advice that it had received that it had withheld, but they were forced to release it. What that showed was that the LNG terminal could increase gas and electricity prices and may not even maintain security of supply. This was the advice that the Government had received. What we\u2019re clearly seeing when it comes to energy really is that New Zealanders cannot afford another three years of this Government\u2019s inability to do anything in the interests of New Zealand\u2019s energy system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWhat advice has the Minister received that counters the arguments that were put up in the advice that was commissioned for him and advisers from Concept Consulting that said that LNG wasn\u2019t going to lower prices for New Zealanders in terms of electricity or gas, necessarily? The Minister told us that these were only some of the components they looked at, but what we haven\u2019t heard either in the Estimates hearing or subsequently is what other advice is the Minister relying on and who did it, when did he receive it, and will he release it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221a30b7d60a03452cb9b736efc6896cdb\u0022 data-id=\u00225f96dceedc16f1fa70795004185306a7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a30b7d60a03452cb9b736efc6896cdb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225f96dceedc16f1fa70795004185306a7\u0022\u003EDr PARMJEET PARMAR (Chairperson of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee) (16:50)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. As the chair of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, I was going to provide a very quick summary of the hearing that we had with two Ministers in the select committee. In my calendar, the debate was going to start at 5 o\u2019clock, but it started earlier, which is not a bad thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe energy appropriations are worth $457.78 million in 2026-2027. These appropriations fund the work of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority and the Electricity Authority. We were very pleased to have the Minister, the Hon Simeon Brown, and his officials from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, the Electricity Authority, and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority to discuss the appropriations. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe discussed managing dry-year energy risks and the liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal to support energy security options that were analysed to decide to build an LNG import terminal. We also talked about the electricity generators and retailers to fund the LNG import terminal. There were other topics discussed, which included warm, dry homes, solar power for schools, and the powers of the Electricity Authority within this appropriation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen moving on to the resources appropriation, the Minister for Resources is responsible for appropriations within the Vote, totalling $26.9 billion in 2026-2027. The single significant appropriation is $22.6 million for management of the Crown mineral estate. This funds the allocation, management, and compliance of the Crown on petroleum and mineral resources under the Crown Minerals Act 1991. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe resources portfolio is also supported by just over $163 million from mineral royalties and $10 million from levies. We were pleased to have Minister Shane Jones and his officials to discuss the appropriations. We discussed potential mining of critical minerals, possible mining of the conservation estate, the gas security fund, and risks linked to gas extraction projects. I say this: anybody interested in more information should read the select committee report, and I look forward to this debate. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022 data-id=\u0022b9f8497786e147ebcb43b8da49185504\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b9f8497786e147ebcb43b8da49185504\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram) (16:53)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. One of the questions that we talked about with the Minister when he came to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee is what mechanisms he was receiving advice on for putting in place to ensure that gentailers wouldn\u2019t simply pass on the cost of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to their consumers. Of course, the Government has backed down on the gas tax and are now saying that they are going to ask the gentailers to pay it, which really is code for passing it on to consumers and consumers picking that up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWhen he came to the select committee, the Minister couldn\u2019t point to any work that he was doing that was going to be put in place to ensure that gentailers simply didn\u2019t pass on the costs of the LNG terminal. Given that he\u2019s had advice that this doesn\u2019t necessarily lower gas or electricity bills for New Zealanders and, indeed, could raise them if they\u2019re passed on and isn\u2019t going to increase our security of supply, I just wonder if the Minister has asked for some advice so that New Zealanders aren\u2019t going to end up paying the price of an LNG terminal that only himself and the oil and gas industry seem to want.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022 data-id=\u0022d4da5d94319cfce7dd4f71ab1b3c43c2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d4da5d94319cfce7dd4f71ab1b3c43c2\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS (Green) (16:54)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is to the Minister. Because we\u2019re in an energy crisis that\u2019s deeper and wider than the 1970s, why has the Minister rejected work on a bipartisan national energy strategy when we know that the sector and Kiwis are calling out for a national energy strategy and for some certainty and clarity on where we\u2019re going? In addition to that, why has the Minister rejected the expertise, as we\u2019ve heard from Concept Consulting, but also the Sapere report, the Frontier report, and the OECD? Why has the Minister rejected that expertise while seeking to invest our country in an expensive folly that is a liquefied natural gas terminal? Why has the Minister rejected all that expertise? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022915e6401cc53d86d4fed2c45f174b7d6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022915e6401cc53d86d4fed2c45f174b7d6\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (16:55)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister about the competition regulation within his appropriations. For context, on 12 August, the Electricity Authority reported that household and small business electricity prices rose an average of 6.8 percent in just the first half of the year. Previous to that in 2025, prices rose an average of 8 percent. The Minister proposes to spend $120 million in this appropriation on governing and operating a market whose statutory regulator exists for the benefit of consumers and to produce a competitive and reliable market, one that is forward-looking and deals with these challenges.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question for the Minister is what consumer outcomes is that regulator being charged with delivering? I\u2019m not just asking about those rising prices, although that is of critical concern not only to the Government but to all New Zealanders. I\u2019m asking him about whether he has expectations of his regulator within that appropriation to deliver on things like lower margins and greater switching and more retail entry into the market.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000564\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EParticularly on the question of greater switching, I want to ask him about the role of the tools within the market which are meant to provide greater transparency for consumers which enable that switching of providers. It seems to be that switching is going backwards in some respects in the New Zealand market and that that transparency of information that enables consumers to switch is not enough to incentivise that switching. Why is it that the Government has been talking about open electricity as the next cab off the rank for open data rights in New Zealand, but that seems to be coming at the expense of open banking, when both of those things should be able to be advanced at once. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also want to ask him about retail entry into the market. Why is it that some of the smaller providers are going out of business and are part of the thousands of liquidations that have happened under this Government\u2019s watch when in fact we need more of those small retailers to be able to compete in that market? They will never be bigger than the gentailers but they make up about 4 percent of the market now. That has gone down from about 5.5 percent on his watch. What is the regulator doing to ensure that there are more market entries and that those small market participants are growing?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022 data-id=\u00220a6c8c19aebad11f31c3fa17a62cb1c4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220a6c8c19aebad11f31c3fa17a62cb1c4\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram) (16:57)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. When the Minister came to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, he told us that he had asked his Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment officials along with the National Infrastructure Funding and Financing Agency (NIFFCo) to currently negotiate a funding model with gentailers to enable them to pay for the terminal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EOne of the things that I\u2019d like an update from the Minister on and for him to expand on what he talked about when he came to the select committee is exactly what he has instructed or asked NIFFCo to do or what the group of Ministers that are working on this have asked NIFFCo to do. Are they are assessing financing? For example, are they giving advice to the Government on whether or not the taxpayer will provide an underwrite? There seemed to be an indication from the co - Prime Minister\u2014sorry, Winston Peters\u2014in the House earlier today that the Government would provide an underwrite on that. The Prime Minister didn\u2019t seem to think that was the case, but there seemed to be some confusion there in whether that was the case and whether that\u2019s something that he\u2019s asked either his officials or NIFFCo for some advice on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220163780c30731fd6c55d534133d4ff78\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Scott Willis.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221ea6e8b923d2f76c0f05f6dfb1e5e05c\u0022\u003EHon Simeon Brown\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c47f09feef23f604778eabf937f4d0ff\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, I had already called.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022 data-id=\u00224c019767f05a5047ed09692ba511d4b6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000571\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224c019767f05a5047ed09692ba511d4b6\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS (Green) (16:58)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. There are approximately 700 hard-working people directly involved in the Warmer Kiwi Homes delivery through member organisations delivering all around the motu. There are 34 member organisations that make up the Community Energy Network, and they are responsible for over 325,000 Healthy Homes assessments and have delivered insulation and heating to over 150,000 homes. I\u2019ve had the privilege of working with many of these member organisations and I\u2019ve seen the impact they make for people, whether it\u2019s removing black mould and putting in ventilation, putting in ceiling or under-floor insulation, or just helping people move out of energy poverty. They have attracted over $150 million of philanthropic funding since 2009 to lift people out of energy poverty.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMy questions to the Minister are what certainty can the Minister give to households, providers, and the sector about the continuation of the Warmer Kiwi Homes scheme, given the incredible return on investment and benefit to society that that programme delivers?  How will the Minister ensure funding procurement and contracting will support that continuous delivery, and, with an estimated 140,000 homes still needing insulation, efficient heating, and practical support, will the Minister finish the job to make our homes warmer and safer? Finally, will the Minister make a commitment to ensure that the Warmer Kiwi Homes scheme funding continues beyond 30 June 2027 in order to avoid damaging delivery capability? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u00228f9b3c2594e00bb9a9b53f1de9d07713\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228f9b3c2594e00bb9a9b53f1de9d07713\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (17:00)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the members for their questions. As I\u2019ve said in relation to the liquefied natural gas terminal, that is critical for our national security. The work\u2019s under way, there is currently a procurement process under way, and there are negotiations actively taking place with the gentailers. The Government is committed to continuing that process. We\u2019ve been very clear in my speech to the business chamber earlier this year around the approach that we\u2019re taking. Everything that I said in that speech stands in relation to the process, and once we have more to say, we will have more to say in relation to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn relation to the question about a bipartisan energy strategy, well, the reality is that we could have a bipartisan energy policy in this country if Labour and the Greens didn\u2019t come to this House and constantly talk down our oil and gas sector, which is critical to the future of this country. It is critical to ensuring that we can keep the lights on and that we have back-up energy when the wind is not blowing, the sun is not shining, and we have a dry year. Those members are responsible wholly for destroying energy security in this country. We are trying to fix it, and until we actually have a sensible Labour Party, like Helen Clark\u2019s Government\u2014they would never have done that. They backed oil and gas. Helen Clark\u2019s Government backed oil and gas, but Jacinda Ardern\u2019s Government didn\u2019t, and that\u2019s the difference. With Helen Clark\u2019s Government, that Government knew what was needed for the future of our energy needs in this country. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022587d574de1174371be09e431d9060e87\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222557b80897333a619f0064f331aeafe5\u0022\u003EHon Cameron Brewer\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, bring back \u201CAuntie\u201D!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f704e54bbae61c40a3c95eb9d61755da\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: I say \u201CNo thanks.\u201D to that, Mr Brewer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut in relation to the Electricity Authority, there is a number of workstreams under way, including the competition task force with the Commerce Commission, which is looking at the level playing field. There are the non-discrimination obligations which have been included, which are critically important to levelling the playing field between the big four and the small generators and retailers, and that\u2019s a critical step towards having a level playing field. There\u2019s the new power comparison and switching website Billy, which is making a big difference for consumers, and we encourage people to use it. Electricity retailers now must also offer time-of-use pricing to their customers\u2014that\u2019s really important\u2014and also the Electricity Authority is now requiring the electricity companies to tell their customers every year whether they\u2019re on the most affordable plan and it is also stopping them from being able to bill for backdating more than six months. Those are all important reforms. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOf course, the work is also under way around the open electricity consumer data right, and that is critically important to the next step so that we give power back to the people so that they can make choices, using the information from their bill, so that they can be on the most affordable plan. There is a range of things under way to improve affordability, and of course there\u2019s more work to do. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022 data-id=\u0022c444c6d0d7ae150d85821ca0b36a193a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c444c6d0d7ae150d85821ca0b36a193a\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram) (17:03)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just remind the Minister of Energy that he didn\u2019t address funding for Warmer Kiwi Homes. Of course, we have not seen any new and additional funding go into that scheme since Budget 2023. Budgets since then have only cut the funding for Warmer Kiwi Homes. We\u2019re currently due for that scheme to run out of funding in June of next year, and so we talked at the select committee about what assurances the Minister could give that there is a plan for a continuation of Warmer Kiwi Homes post this funding that was put in place by the Labour Government in 2023, given that we have only seen cuts. Indeed, we saw an additional cut to Warmer Kiwi Homes. Part of the reprioritisation package that was in this year\u2019s Budget for energy saw further money going out of Warmer Kiwi Homes, and so I ask whether the Minister will give an assurance on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019d also like the Minister to clarify to the committee whether or not the Crown will be providing an underwrite to the liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal, or to say what he sees is the Crown\u2019s role in the procurement process of the LNG terminal. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u00225222dff540bc395c5436cee3947e5f66\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225222dff540bc395c5436cee3947e5f66\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (17:04)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Given the Minister of Energy\u2019s comments about the non-discrimination clauses, we\u2019ll return there. I want to ask him, given that he seems to accept the structural advantage that exists with the gentailers, why does he believe that the behavioural non-discrimination rule is sufficient, what evidence does he have at the moment that that non-discrimination obligation is working, and when might he make an assessment of whether he needs to take further action if it is not, in fact, working?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e641dc4bf8aa41b0bd8a29676c8ba9a6\u0022 data-id=\u0022d2d8f5f433bb404f7cbd0c9328b39b04\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e641dc4bf8aa41b0bd8a29676c8ba9a6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d2d8f5f433bb404f7cbd0c9328b39b04\u0022\u003EREUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour\u2014Christchurch East) (17:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. One of the questions we sought clarification from the Minister of Energy at the select committee was around the community renewable energy\u2014so, solar power for schools. We know that this works, we know that it\u2019s an excellent resource for schools, and we also know that it helps young people take those conversations home to their families, and some political parties have an excellent policy in the solar space, with Labour being one of them. So it\u2019s an excellent opportunity for those conversations to happen but also for young people to talk about the potential for solar energy, which helps to lower power bills. Does the Minister have plans to continue to support the solar power for schools programme? He mentioned in one of his earlier answers about giving power back to the people, and this literally does that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022e90610441098f72342658d4ed5444545\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e90610441098f72342658d4ed5444545\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (17:06)\u003C/span\u003E: To follow on from my questions\u2014which are short, and I invite the Minister to answer them in a brief way\u2014how much of the operating component of the $42.543 million in his appropriations for the Electricity Authority is being spent on monitoring compliance with his new non-discrimination obligations, and how will the authority establish whether Contact, Genesis, Mercury, and Meridian are offering genuinely equivalent hedge terms?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ETo follow on with that line of questions, when will the Minister know whether these changes\u2014which in his Government\u2019s own press release were described as a structural change for the market\u2014will actually have the effect of lowering prices? Will he investigate this, or will it be another compliance review that takes more time before New Zealanders see their prices coming down? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022 data-id=\u002251a7719ba50c55807a7845d3ee4b963b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002251a7719ba50c55807a7845d3ee4b963b\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram) (17:07)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019d just like to remind the Minister of Energy that the committee is still waiting to hear from the Minister what advice he has received so that he can reassure New Zealanders that they aren\u2019t just going to see the costs of liquefied natural gas (LNG) being passed on to their households, given that we\u2019ve now seen the advice that his Government was trying to withhold that shows that LNG is not necessarily going to lower the cost of either electricity or gas, and in a number of scenarios it will indeed increase the costs to New Zealand households and businesses. But I\u2019d also like to know some more information and to get an update on the $450 million reserve that was in the Budget\u2014the temporary targeted support for fuel security that sat in the Budget as a contingency\u2014to know if there have been any drawdowns or if there are any planned drawdowns on that $450 million contingency fund, and, if there are, what specific criteria are going to be used to assess whether or not money and projects will be drawn down from that fund.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u0022404abea6a4be08bc8ddc9349eb30672c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022404abea6a4be08bc8ddc9349eb30672c\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (17:08)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank members for their questions. In relation to the question around the non-discrimination obligations, the Electricity Authority will, obviously, be receiving data and will be monitoring that and providing advice to me in relation to the effectiveness of those obligations. My clear expectation of both the Commerce Commission and the Electricity Authority is that more work will need to be done because we need to make sure that these level playing field obligations deliver what they are there for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to solar, we announced in the Budget funding for Solar in Schools. We\u2019ve delivered that. There is now a significant number of schools\u2014500 schools\u2014receiving Solar in Schools. It\u2019s going to make a big difference. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere is also a significant amount of work under way. We\u2019ve removed building consents for rooftop solar and we\u2019ve expanded household solar\u2019s export limits\u2014we\u2019ve doubled it from 5 kilowatts to 10 kilowatts. There is a requirement for providers to provide rebates for exports to the grid at peak times. We\u2019ve launched the Solar on Farms initiative, and work is under way on plug-in solar, which is going to make a big difference, as well. There\u2019s a huge amount happening in that space. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to liquefied natural gas, ultimately the work that\u2019s under way is designed to improve our energy security and affordability. By removing the baked-in cost which goes into electricity of a dry-year risk, we will significantly improve outcomes for consumers. On driving affordability, we\u2019ve already seen a 35 percent reduction in wholesale prices since we made the announcement earlier this year. Our plan is working. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022 data-id=\u002250ea9b112545b56f003c86e386bba65d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002250ea9b112545b56f003c86e386bba65d\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram) (17:10)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. The Minister for Energy was just talking about the work that\u2019s happening around the level playing field. We still haven\u2019t seen the evidence coming out in terms of what impact that strand of work will have on pricing. But I do note that the Minister just released last week a discussion document around the large amount that we need invested in our lines companies over the coming years and how it is that we need to ensure that\u2019s delivering value for New Zealanders and how it\u2019s going to be paid for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the things I was surprised to see, or not see, from the Minister in that document was more of an obligation on lines companies to have to quantify why they would not be looking to non-network solutions, to have to look at what was delivering way of making sure we had a secure electricity system with the least cost from a distribution network perspective. Did he consider and did he get advice on whether or not there should be a requirement on the lines companies to consider non-network solutions such as battery, solar, and things that, ultimately, will lead to lower power bills? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of the advice the Minister has received around putting together that piece of work, what advice has he received about when New Zealanders would expect to see savings turn up in their power bills from the package of alternatives that he\u2019s put there? I\u2019ve had a lot of feedback that a lot of people see this as a reasonably watered down version of what the Government could do, are questioning when benefits will flow to them, and, really, are saying they cannot afford three more years of what this Government is delivering.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022 data-id=\u0022e93a56d1be9e000d91cf2ac917aafe63\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e93a56d1be9e000d91cf2ac917aafe63\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS (Green) (17:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. We just heard from the Minister for Energy that liquefied natural gas (LNG) is critical to our national energy strategy. What evidence can the Minister provide to back up this statement, given that we haven\u2019t heard that from any other expertise? I\u2019m really interested to hear the expert opinion that the Minister has that would back up that statement, that it is critical to our national energy security, because we\u2019ve heard from Concept Consulting, we\u2019ve heard from the Sapere report, we\u2019ve heard from the Frontier report, and we\u2019ve heard from the OECD that reliance on volatile international prices of LNG will make us tied to expensive fossil fuels when we have home-grown energy available to us right here, right now, and this Government has rejected those options. What evidence has the Minister got in to back up that statement?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002248ce26e54d83406399b875df20400dec\u0022 data-id=\u002285c1709a9ef5284d3fe9403cc439309f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002248ce26e54d83406399b875df20400dec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002285c1709a9ef5284d3fe9403cc439309f\u0022\u003EANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (17:13)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, my question is probably to both the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Resources, because one of the things that\u2019s sitting here behind the price of the energy that we\u2019ve had is that it went up spectacularly when the oil and gas ban came on, and so I\u2019m really interested in what the trends are looking like. I also wanted to note that gas is important. I chair the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, so while the Minister goes and speaks to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, we do have all of the energy companies in front of us as well, and they\u2019ve been quite clear that the most important use of gas is not for electricity but for actual gas consumers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019d be really interested too to hear some comments on the impact of the lack of gas on those businesses which rely on gas, and also on the roughly 1 million Kiwi households which also use gas. We\u2019ve been told that the cost of converting those will be something like $10,000 to $13,000 each, which will be a total of $10 billion to $13 billion across all of those households if they have to convert. Then you\u2019ve got the likes of the Methanexes, the Ballances, you\u2019ve got Glenbrook Steel Mill, and you\u2019ve got a lot of horticulture, which all rely on that gas, so I\u2019d be really interested in what we can do to try and make sure that they actually have a supply going forward, the opportunities that there might be to be able to find more gas, whether that\u2019s onshore, whether that\u2019s biogas, whether it\u2019s offshore, whatever it might be, I\u2019m really interested in that exploration. Then I\u2019d like to come back also with some questions around direct mining as well, because this is energy and resources that we\u2019re talking about here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022 data-id=\u00229bc9bd41a46aef1d84528e131090a621\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229bc9bd41a46aef1d84528e131090a621\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources) (17:14)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. It\u2019s a pleasure to make a contribution. If I can just set the scene. Technically, it is correct that when Jacinda Ardern misled Winston Peters and made that woeful decision and allowed Cabinet processes to be circumvented, it had the effect of chilling investment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, it is administratively correct to say that certain entitlements were left in place. However, it took many weeks later before the Cabinet processes were tidied up. Sadly, the chilling effect of that nuclear moment meant that, throughout the world, the message went that the oil and gas industry under the Ardern regime had no future in New Zealand. Now, that probably wasn\u2019t the intention. I want to be at least fair to the Opposition spokesperson. I don\u2019t think, at the time, they were wanting to extinguish the New Zealand economy, and they certainly weren\u2019t endeavouring to destroy the Taranaki economy. But I have to say, I look no further than the member behind me who shows us photos on a regular basis of empty shop fronts, of houses virtually boarded up as men and women leave because the oil and gas industry, sadly, was closed down when investment was scared away.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s important that Kiwis bear in mind that, after this Government reversed that scandalous ban, it has taken time for a level of confidence and optimism to be reinjected into the economy. I have to acknowledge Simeon Brown for doing a tremendous job in seeking a solution to make up for the gap. In good time, the full details of that solution under his leadership will be revealed. However, the $200 million fund, if I can respond to my colleague\u2019s response, is an attempt to make up to the fact that we have dropped down perilously low to petajoule production hovering around 80-85. Now, matters might improve in the event that the owners of Methanex do decide to move on, but that\u2019s a commercial decision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is not a Government that wants to chase any more investors out of New Zealand, as happened under the Ardern regime. What this Government wants to do with oil and gas is, actually, to skilfully use the $200 million as a way of derisking, and decisions are imminent\u2014decisions are imminent\u2014and it also wants to ensure that there\u2019s a transition, and where there is a gap, we\u2019ll wait to hear on those details. But under no circumstances whatsoever should any firm fear that we don\u2019t have their back, which is why Nicola Willis, in the Budget, announced up to a billion dollars\u2019 worth of an underwrite to enable firms to transition in the event they have the capacity, with access to bank debt, to move on from their reliance on gas to other forms of energy. But it will take time. But know this from me, New Zealanders: it was Jacinda Ardern and Megan Woods who destroyed our sovereign reputation when they misled Winston Peters, did not follow Cabinet process, and condemned Taranaki to penury.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022 data-id=\u00226e47e0cc549070afac135a08887332e9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226e47e0cc549070afac135a08887332e9\u0022\u003EDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (17:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. I\u2019m really surprised that the Minister for Resources had not one but two attempts to mislead this House by using the word \u201Cmislead\u201D in an inappropriate way, and he should know better, and quite frankly, he needs to be pulled up on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002234b7a1e3fd70c249cc1f6ecbe3f1f181\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll take it under advisement. Thank you. Scott Willis.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022854d73a754ef56e62998bc6e3e4eca45\u0022\u003ESteve Abel\u003C/span\u003E: Steve Abel.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002233ff529069fb144f5607bf9522ed38dc\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry\u2014Steve Abel. My apologies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u002265ececfea6eb423ec5cd1ff85d707545\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002265ececfea6eb423ec5cd1ff85d707545\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (17:20)\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s all right\u2014we sit beside each other. Regarding the point just made by the Minister: in the context of his proposition that the doors are closing in Taranaki, what is his explanation for the doors closing in Dunedin, and the shopfronts closing in Wellington, and the pea-growers in the Hawke\u2019s Bay, and all of the deindustrialisation across this country that\u2019s happened under his watch? Are you blaming that on the actions of a Government all those years ago?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002248ce26e54d83406399b875df20400dec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a54edade0caa0604c8addb374da12e99\u0022\u003EAndy Foster\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022499e85bd47ee7e9c0a84db158739079b\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s good to hear that response, because that shows just how deluded this Government is. My question for the Minister is this: given that the biggest and most powerful oil and gas explorers in the world came and searched and found nothing and left before the 2018 ban came into place, and given that our gas reserves were diminishing since 2007, how better could that $200 million Gas Security Fund have been spent? The Minister just alluded to the bank debt to assist industry in moving away from its current gas dependency. What evaluations did the Minister take and what consideration did he give to investing in solar, biogas, biomass, wind, and battery energy systems that actually take us away from the dependence on that finite resource of fossil gas, which many companies have come and looked for and not been able to find?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s the first question: when he evaluated that public expenditure on the forlorn hope of trying to find some more gas, what consideration did he give to the other, more effective ways that money could be spent on cheaper forms of energy and abundant forms of energy that are indigenous and locally owned with which we could be powering our system and our economy. My second question is: does he genuinely believe that the most expensive form of fossil fuel available, liquefied natural gas (LNG), is going to solve the energy cost problem of industry across this country? We are now going to be a price-taker in terms of the cost of that very expensive form of\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d8609c612411686d517d0f9b09b28\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224ec8cf5f4b63a625aaa4e74787b5bf2b\u0022\u003EDavid MacLeod\u003C/span\u003E: Diesel\u2019s more expensive.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002264cd93d335f01e959517b8a29d5c0852\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: I can assure you, LNG is more expensive than diesel, my friend.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022 data-id=\u002271e4fa373110a776f0b834fc0406510d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002271e4fa373110a776f0b834fc0406510d\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister for Energy) (17:22)\u003C/span\u003E: That contribution does deserve a response with my characteristic temperateness. The conceit which informs this predictable attack on fossil fuels\u2014that if international or domestic investors are inclined to come to New Zealand, use our geological reservoirs of information, use their own capital, somehow their willingness to exploit our resources and manage a risk is something that we as politicians, or they on the left side, have declared is morally unacceptable in the New Zealand economy. They have no mandate to make that decision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EKiwis should celebrate the fact that if anyone wants to come to our country, boost the supply of energy and boost the availability of energy, they are entitled to do that, providing they\u2019re obeying the law. But, no, that side of the House wants to change the law and condemn New Zealand to a pipe dream\u2014some kind of Camelot existence; some kind of lotus-land economic reality that, somehow, we\u2019re going to be lotus-eaters; that we can have a secure energy system sans coal, sans gas, reliant totally on wind and solar. Nowhere in the world does that work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat is going to happen to the firms that are marooned and reliant on gas? Nothing. They have no future. It is absurd to suggest that Kiwis can possibly trust the view that is denouncing the arrival of either Asian capital, Australian capital, or anyone who\u2019s willing to take a risk and work with our Government to open up potential bonanza, El Dorado levels of wealth that lie in the ocean. I say, bring it on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, on the question of the $200 million Gas Security Fund; The Gas Security fund was designed to de-risk the availability and accelerate the delivery of those known fields that with a bit of a helping hand, they can contribute at the margin to what is proving to be a worsening situation\u2014as I said, about 85 petajoules and declining. It is money well spent. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI know\u2014I can predict what\u2019s going to be said: the Supreme Court. Sadly, I\u2019m unable to explain to you what I really think about the Supreme Court. However, that was dealt to partly by my colleague Mr Goldsmith. But the Supreme Court did lay a certain level of obligations on politicians to go through a process in allocating p\u016Btea, allocating capital, to boost our oil and gas. That fund is designed for gas\u2014that fund is not designed for sun or wind\u2014and that gas is absolutely necessary to make up for a time, as Simeon Brown has said, when neither of those resources are available. I mean, it\u2019s extraordinary that I\u2019m even having to explain this yet again. Naturally, there are certain people who don\u2019t care for the sound of my voice\u2014I\u2019m not one of them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022 data-id=\u0022ad419e4cf6a223f8e0be4abd38f28adf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000615\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ad419e4cf6a223f8e0be4abd38f28adf\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram) (17:27)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question actually is for the Minister of Resources. When the Minister of resources came to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, we asked him about whether he was doing any work to have royalties raised for mining companies to pay more for the work that they do in New Zealand. The Minister certainly has made quite a big deal about saying that he wanted a review into this. We know that New Zealand sits at the lower end internationally of the royalties that they do pay\u2014certainly far lower than jurisdictions that the Minister often likes to point to as nirvana, like Western Australia and Queensland; certainly, much lower than that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThere has been a recent Deloitte report that shows that, actually, raising royalties over a number of years\u2014out to 2060, I think, from memory\u2014could actually deliver something like $758 million additionally to New Zealand and the New Zealand economy, and for New Zealanders, given that we largely have global, multinational mining companies working here. Has the Minister revisited the answer that he gave in the select committee that he had given up doing any work on raising royalties and wasn\u2019t going to pursue any work to protect the New Zealand taxpayer and make sure that New Zealanders were receiving their fair share?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022 data-id=\u0022e052a4762a3afc6685a46a5e6de2499d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e052a4762a3afc6685a46a5e6de2499d\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources) (17:28)\u003C/span\u003E: Kiwis, please, bear in mind that 80c in every dollar, we are advised, stays in our economy from those activities associated with mining. Of course, the other side of the House never count the contribution that the mining sector makes to GST, PAYE, corporate tax, ACC, and a whole variety of other levies that enterprises meet in order to remain compliant.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThey never talk about the high-paying jobs; they never talk about the contributions that those firms make to the West Coast; they never talk about the engineers, the digger drivers, the geologists, the students, and God forbid the ecologists. No, they never talk about the fact of $13 million to $15 million paid by enterprises associated with mining just to go through the fast-track. But, wait\u2014wait, mining industry: that bill is going to go down when I get back into Parliament and to this role on this side of the House after the election. That\u2019s ridiculously expensive, but that\u2019s another matter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELet me come back to the business of royalties. If you are a miner in New Zealand, or if you are an investor in New Zealand, it is reasonable that your enterprise which you entered into should proceed on a basis of certainty. Now, there are two ways of looking at this. Royalties could be conceived as an ordinary part of taxation\u2014I know that side of the House, according to Simeon Brown, are incontinent with their desire to put up taxes; that\u2019s a debate, and he\u2019s an expert on those matters in terms of studying their desire to put up taxes\u2014or you could say that a royalty is a specific levy. I\u2019ll leave that debate to people who enjoy talking about Crown revenue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut the fact of the matter is that if you arbitrarily interfere and indiscriminately change the impost imposed on the mining sector, you can very well destroy industry. Look what has happened in Queensland. This very day, the coal mining industry in Australia, Queensland is knocking on the door of the Queensland Parliament seeking relief as a consequence of the arbitrary imposition of disproportionately high levies changed with the swipe of a pen overnight, freezing investment, chilling investment, and destroying jobs. We are not going to destroy jobs in the mining sector. We are going to massively expand the mining sector.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn fact, today, I was in Rotorua. I gave a memorable speech to the mining conference in Rotorua. Rather incongruous that it should be in Rotorua, but I\u2019ll overlook that geographical incongruity. I promised them that the information that Cabinet asked me to release, that Cabinet mandated me to undertake, which was the Deloitte\u2019s neutral platform of information comparing the royalties with the rest of the world\u2014we compare favourably with the rest of the world because we want to incentivise investment. We want to turn our country into a magnet for investment. We want to encourage the growth of mining, because most of the Department of Conservation (DOC) land is overrun with weasels and rats, and it\u2019s not even DOC land anyway. That\u2019s going to be a key part of my campaign. Stewardship land is not DOC land. It should be opened up, possibly tomorrow, or certainly on 9, 10, 11, or 12 November for massive extractive activity. Those people will enjoy hunting, more tourism, more development. I mean, I\u2019m just getting started.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022440a125e85954bae9f5d470b7551e4f3\u0022 data-id=\u0022f6cd1c56c13f9e0b9326814f99e71981\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000622\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022440a125e85954bae9f5d470b7551e4f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f6cd1c56c13f9e0b9326814f99e71981\u0022\u003ECAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (17:33)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. That was a memorable contribution from the Minister for Resources, and from that, he also alluded to being in Rotorua for a miner\u2019s conference. It\u2019s an interesting place, the central plateau; it\u2019s got huge geothermal resources not very far below the surface. However, I have, in my travels, met with a few people in the geothermal space\u2014a few companies, exploration companies, people who are generating energy out of that\u2014and I\u2019ve heard that there\u2019s been quite a rise in the cost of putting borewells down because of the jobs that left this country after the exploration ban was put in place for oil and gas. So, Minister, I would just like to ask you, how do you expect to keep the level of skilled and employee talent intact as we grow mining, and while we grow exploration, when we have struggled so far to maintain that after so many skilled employees and talent left New Zealand after that obscene ban on oil and gas exploration?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022 data-id=\u002275e2a5d5bda3516aabeba1d2bb4e0d57\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002275e2a5d5bda3516aabeba1d2bb4e0d57\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources) (17:34)\u003C/span\u003E: Look, I don\u2019t mind admitting that no one\u2019s career is devoid of imperfections, and there may have been one or three appearances in an earlier phase of my career with kabuki-faced expressions, but we\u2019ll overlook those rather bleak episodes. I stand by what I said. There was a level of poor disclosure to my leader Winston Peters back there in 2018, and a forensic analysis will show a gross betrayal of full disclosure to my leader, but I\u2019ll leave that matter in the past because I don\u2019t want to continually rake over bleak accounts\u2014bleak accounts\u2014of political history.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000624\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI want us to look to the future and remind everyone that geothermal energy also has a host of mineral properties, and we have, from time to time\u2014actually, in fact, I have to acknowledge Grant Robertson, and I\u2019m likely to attract a few baleful glances by doing that, and David Parker; they did support me in giving p\u016Btea towards some entrepreneurs to extract silica out in the Reporoa area\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022440a125e85954bae9f5d470b7551e4f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022747eaf95d93abd5056fbcb21583eb400\u0022\u003ECameron Luxton\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, they\u2019ve got gold in there too.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a952e924ff7041bfad0c2b9ae98a4c93\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014yes, out of the geothermal resource, but the point remains that if we don\u2019t keep a certain level of quality workmanship and quality human capital, it will drift to Australia and other places. Now, that\u2019s not necessarily a bad thing because families have to earn a living, but we have learnt with the supercritical, and I have to acknowledge Megan Woods\u2014she did start the project and I carried on with an allocation. Some people have criticised whether or not it was a worthy thing to do to carry on and allocate p\u016Btea to what could be seen as a moonbeam shot, but surely all Governments should be willing to take a punt if it has a transformational effect in terms of energy and the level of human capital, technology, and skill required to go five to six kilometres in the earth. The skills are transferable from using oil and gas experience.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000627\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ESadly, it\u2019s very, very much in short supply because those men and women have drifted overseas. I\u2019m confident, however, in the event we have an opportunity to govern again and the billion-dollar fund, should it survive post-election negotiations, can be made available to boost the reservoir of information, de-risk investment, and really turbocharge the opportunities for men and women to recommit themselves to the extractive sector. It\u2019s a brilliant and bright future because it\u2019s posited upon us boosting our economic sovereignty and moving away from this lotus-eating false reality that somehow New Zealand, exclusively, is going to save the planet. Spare me that religious falsehood.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022efcd50a55dd879a82c77122ad1b04fac\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022efcd50a55dd879a82c77122ad1b04fac\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (ACT) (17:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. To the Minister for Resources: following New Zealand\u2019s commitment to the International Energy Agency Ministerial Declaration of Critical Minerals, how will the Budget appropriated for financial year 2026-27 be used to fast track the mapping and assessment of our domestic strategic mineral deposits?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000629\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d48f59cdf92b22ccf1e180ef3a45b4d8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Minister for Resources, just to let you know that you\u2019ve just got under five minutes remaining.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022 data-id=\u0022ae136d03f279c9ca27971ba4488fc7cf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ae136d03f279c9ca27971ba4488fc7cf\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources) (17:38)\u003C/span\u003E: That will enable me to be succinct and concise. Can I respond in two ways? You have raised the importance of critical minerals. I have already referred to the fact that officials have been working with American officials as to whether there\u2019s scope for our nation, through our Government, to form a pact with the United States of America\u2019s Government\u2014that remains to be seen. However, that negotiating process is still under way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000631\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI have also spoken to you, as a Parliament in question time, about the critical mineral strategy and the list of incredibly important minerals that have the potential to boost our capacity, to join the global supply lines, and we are also dedicating additional money, which should not come as a surprise, through the recalibration of funds in the newly established science bodies. But it will require a change in culture and attitude.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe conservation estate should not exclusively be seen as some type of fairytale wilderness area that can never be opened up for development, for hunting, for tourism, and a variety of other economic purposes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000633\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe must support Tama Potaka and the modest changes, the modest improvements, that man is seeking to develop. Amongst that is the potential of the minerals and the mining.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, there is a modest footprint that is left. Look no further, Mr Court, than Wharekirauponga a tiny little dot on the landscape of Coromandel\u2014on the right side of the Dixie line. It is not on the side that excites Ms Delahunty; it is on the side where the frogs can be moved, where the moths can fly away, where the M\u0101oris can get jobs, and the Matua can mount a helicopter and survey the mining estate which is rich with potential.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022 data-id=\u0022da4c5a67ee7ce116100ac0a870cfd2ec\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022da4c5a67ee7ce116100ac0a870cfd2ec\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS (Green) (17:40)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019ll be straight to the point. My question is to the Minister for Energy. If the liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal fails to take off\u2014if we fail to have a solution to the critical energy crisis we are facing, Minister\u2014would the Minister consider the development of a new, publicly owned entity to secure our energy security, to ensure we have a dry-year solution that does not rely on ministerial oversight, ministerial decisions, or Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment professionalism, but would have the expertise to choose the lowest cost, best solution for our firming problem? We could call such an entity \u201CKiwipower\u201D, for example. Would the Minister get behind such an idea to make that happen to ensure we have security of supply when we hit the dry-year challenge, and will the Minister back this idea? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u002238716f525b8bacdefb5b3407bf56ae88\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002238716f525b8bacdefb5b3407bf56ae88\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (17:42)\u003C/span\u003E: I appreciate the member\u2019s pitch. The answer to the question is that Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) went through a very rigorous process considering all of the options in relation to the dry-year risk, and the liquefied natural gas (LNG) importation terminal came out as the preferred option, as the member knows, and the papers are all online. MBIE looked at a range of different options including diesel, pumped hydro, demand response, battery technology, biomass, rooftop solar\u2014they looked at a range of different options and considered that LNG would be able to be delivered the fastest and also provide the most cost-effective option to be able to manage the dry-year risk that New Zealand is facing and for those benefits to be passed on to consumer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe good news is, since we made that announcement earlier this year, and because of the significant increased generation that\u2019s coming online through fast-track and other decisions this Government is making, we\u2019ve seen a significant reduction in wholesale electricity prices this year, which is good news. There\u2019 still more work to do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u0022b566633fdf513b6efb3cde5ca0551665\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000638\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b566633fdf513b6efb3cde5ca0551665\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (17:43)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Listen, I know the Minister for Resources is glorious in his effusive rhetoric and his coal-blustering hyperbole, but I wonder if he\u2019s prepared to give up harassing rare endemic frogs for a moment\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000639\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221d26410449a002668257c13af5cf3329\u0022\u003ESimon Court\u003C/span\u003E: They\u2019re not rare, they\u2019re everywhere.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000640\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e43a6a46518ecaf94fe74f1f5428c4f1\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014to answer a more serious question. They\u2019re actually not everywhere; they\u2019re in a very narrow number of places in the Waikato. All of the Archey\u2019s frogs in the universe exist only in the Waikato.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000641\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is a serious question I\u2019d like the Minister to respond to. In terms of the certainty of energy costs for industry, we have had a rude awakening with the unilateral attack by the United States on Iran, which led to ongoing troubles with access to fuel and an extraordinary spike in the cost of fuel globally. The whole world has worn the consequences of that orange madman in the White House, and businesses in this country have\u2014the cost of diesel, the cost of petrol, the cost of fuel on the whole. How, Minister, with our projections of what future fuel security looks like\u2014fossil fuel security\u2014in the global context, does he give industry certainty of the costs of energy when we are now moving from an indigenous gas supply, as it runs out, to an imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) supply where we are a price-taker, and we are therefore subject to the fluctuations of that price, whatever is happening in the international energy market? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat is exactly why\u2014would it not be wiser and give greater security for that same money to be being invested in local biogas, for example, which is the same molecule and can go in the same pipes? Yes, it\u2019s starting from a low base\u2014we\u2019ve got to grow it up\u2014but we can be using the remainder of our reserves for industry now, rather than invest in a very uncertain, expensive form of gas, LNG, and be investing in local options of renewable energy, which have unlimited supply.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u0022c98b89e56b1281c24958d96a73786b68\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000643\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c98b89e56b1281c24958d96a73786b68\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (17:45)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for his question. We\u2019ve had a number of questions in this House regarding the liquefied natural gas (LNG) debate about \u201CWhat about this option?\u201D or \u201CWhat about that option?\u201D. Well, we looked at all the options. We also looked at that option, and, of course, biogas is not of sufficient scale to be able to actually meet the need.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWhat the Green Party and Labour don\u2019t seem to understand is that on average, we get a dry year about every four years, which means we don\u2019t have the luxury of waiting till 2039 for a big lake at the bottom of the South Island, which was the former Minister for Energy\u2019s solution, and we don\u2019t have the time to wait for biogas to become of sufficient scale\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000645\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224c3400fed5b3fb2cc583190772703163\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: 6 terawatts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222cbbd02b497ba15cbbe0e67e62fba6ab\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: \u20146 terawatts is what Minister Jones is saying\u2014and biomass we\u2019d need to burn through Huntly, and Huntly has limited capacity of how much it can actually deliver in terms of energy needs. That would simply replace what\u2019s being used for coal; it doesn\u2019t actually fix the rest of the dry-year problem, which is what we need gas for, which is why LNG has become the preferred option.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ENow, in terms of the price volatility, that is of course an issue that has been looked at\u2014something which I examined very closely on becoming the Minister for Energy again following the war in Iran. But the reality is that the International Energy Agency is saying that the amount of LNG gas coming on board over the next few years is going to well outweigh what has been lost through the Strait of Hormuz, and of course, at the moment, we\u2019re reliant on coal from one particular country. LNG would actually diversify those supply chains across different parts of the world. There are a number of reasons why the Government has made the decision. The problem with the Opposition is they don\u2019t have a plan; they don\u2019t have a solution; they\u2019re simply complaining when we\u2019re actually getting on and fixing the mess they left behind. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022cf0510c6ebb533e00daa8fcfa9a9b8c9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000648\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cf0510c6ebb533e00daa8fcfa9a9b8c9\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (ACT) (17:47)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. A question for the Minister for Energy: given that there are reports that Huntly\u2019s 400-megawatt gas generator is currently offline because that gas has been instead allocated to Ballance to make fertiliser\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002239e56f2044afac5d79fc425d17573eba\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Food\u2014food.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000650\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002200bb3f3b325cd35236a38d0b65612ff6\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014that\u2019s right, absolutely vital for food\u2014how important is it that we have liquefied natural gas, not just for electricity generation, but so that the residual gas in the market can support industry?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u0022d090210438b6bd495cde0b0dc1ab10a9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d090210438b6bd495cde0b0dc1ab10a9\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (17:48)\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019re going through a procurement process, and as I outlined in my speech to the Auckland Business Chamber in relation to that decision, ultimately, we need to make sure we\u2019ve got the backup energy first and foremost for our electricity. The funding model which we\u2019re working through and considering is about also how do you fairly ensure that those other parties who may wish to access the gas pay their fair share?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe reality is, if we want to have an industrial base in New Zealand, if we want to have an electricity system where we\u2019ve dealt with the dry-year risk, we need thermal backup generation in order to do that. With rapidly dwindling supply of gas here in New Zealand and the gap currently being filled by a coal stockpile filling half of it and gas needed for the other half, we need another option. That\u2019s why the officials have advised that liquefied natural gas is the preferred option; that is why we\u2019re pursuing it; it is critically important for the future of this country, and I am not going to do what the previous Minister for Energy Megan Woods did, which was leave the country high and dry and crash the oil and gas sector, which ultimately led to massive deindustrialisation and high energy prices in New Zealand. We are fixing the mess left behind by Labour.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c117f6511bc4b8fb6fdcf9c6133fb99\u0022 data-id=\u002293f72c0c34dfaf080b2321ce306fe0fb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c117f6511bc4b8fb6fdcf9c6133fb99\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002293f72c0c34dfaf080b2321ce306fe0fb\u0022\u003EDr DAVID WILSON (NZ First) (17:49)\u003C/span\u003E: Simple question: due to the closure of\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022957f0cabbc6add783f8adf8281b5af3d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Can I just inform the member there is one minute and 57 seconds remaining.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000655\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c117f6511bc4b8fb6fdcf9c6133fb99\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022469fd5a54dbbe8826a104e0beefc03ff\u0022\u003EDr DAVID WILSON\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, no problem. Due to the closure of Marsden Point, has that affected our vulnerability as a nation and, supplementary to that, our exposure to the vicissitudes of the International Energy Agency?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022 data-id=\u0022c70effbf497f4ecac870dbfb20970c6d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c70effbf497f4ecac870dbfb20970c6d\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister for Energy) (17:50)\u003C/span\u003E: I can assure you, that scandalous, woeful, dangerous decision when Marsden Point was closed down with the approval of Megan Woods\u2014not only did our Government need to ride to the rescue and spend up to $20 million re-establishing a tank to create a 100-litre buffer of diesel that she left empty; we have saved the New Zealand fuel resilience as a consequence of the closure of Marsden Point. It would never have happened if the matua and the rangatira Winston Peters had not been tossed out as a consequence of an inordinately negative campaign run and lies that were told at the time about Marsden Point. Marsden Point, sadly, no longer can fulfil its full potential, but we have rescued it by re-establishing a tank that was left bereft as a consequence of Megan\u2019s failure to effect economic security.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022440a125e85954bae9f5d470b7551e4f3\u0022 data-id=\u002202008880f46475e1341363dd50d3bae8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022440a125e85954bae9f5d470b7551e4f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002202008880f46475e1341363dd50d3bae8\u0022\u003ECAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (17:51)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. To the Minister of Energy; it\u2019s wonderful to have you in the chair, because I\u2019ll get a chance to ask you this question. New Zealand\u2019s building out energy generation all over the country, but we\u2019ve got to connect that up, and so, getting lines\u2014how do we make sure that lines are being built in the right place and are not being overbuilt to transport energy around the country?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u0022d951c90e99886a1e3c3953801589cd16\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d951c90e99886a1e3c3953801589cd16\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (17:52)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for the question. Ultimately, Transpower has a long-term plan, but, also, they have to get approval from the Commerce Commission (ComCom) for their investments. The Commerce Commission scrutinises their plans to make sure that it\u2019s proportionate and that it\u2019s meeting the needs that New Zealanders have\u2014because, ultimately, all of those charges end up on people\u2019s bills, and so the ComCom has a very important role in doing that. In terms of the discussion document we released last week, particularly around distribution companies, there\u2019s a lot of work that needs to be done to make sure that they are focused on affordability, and that\u2019s what the discussion document is out for. I look forward to people\u2019s feedback.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220710b2f9462ac1f3507b382f4d851f21\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Can I just consult with the Opposition members. If there are no more questions, it\u2019s likely to collapse the Estimates debate, so, technically, I need 30 seconds more before we can report progress on today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d96297b4e4d2343ef95e597b04d3950d\u0022\u003EDr Tracey McLellan\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. Can I just seek some clarification on that, Madam Chair, because this debate started at 4.45 p.m., which is now several minutes over the hour.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223b14b5e4eca8bcc5861929c047c5bcfe\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Correct, yeah.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225ec9d95db155633b1cd5a8bd558ad755\u0022\u003EDr Tracey McLellan\u003C/span\u003E: That is correct?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225c7ca490e801352eacbec0541b0752cf\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Correct.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220849ff09411fd643d591862bd0122c96\u0022\u003EDr Tracey McLellan\u003C/span\u003E: So you still need about another 30 seconds?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002298cc8034c4ed12773f0d3a1e72367d9a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I need seven.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222c279faf2440e2d8569f2d732475affb\u0022\u003EDr Tracey McLellan\u003C/span\u003E: OK, thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022 data-id=\u0022f74d0206c68b2eae7ae7c569ac434b58\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f74d0206c68b2eae7ae7c569ac434b58\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram) (17:54)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just as this debate comes to a close, I think it\u2019s important that New Zealanders reflect on the fact that what we\u2019ve seen here is two Ministers that have come down to this House and misled the New Zealand public\u2014they\u2019ve misled the New Zealand public and they\u2019ve withheld advice. They\u2019ve misled the New Zealand public\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f72739541c00642873adeef6bf629833\u0022\u003EHon Louise Upston\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. You clearly can\u2019t use language like that in this Chamber.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000669\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b09a7d013a373bdd03a602ee0986faf6\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order\u2014\u201Cmisled\u201D has been a phrase that has been used throughout this debate. I\u2019m only reflecting language that Government Ministers have used during the course of this debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e7b77251329d75f6fa61040455fcbc40\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I do agree with you, but at the time there was quite a bit of to and fro in that interchange. I would just ask members to keep it parliamentary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002228fa666734c25cc1b534abf71a8af7e3\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Indeed. Professional\u2014professional!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000672\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221e0ac30d5adfa0ba07affbbff4e50021\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s not helping, Mr Jones.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002270acbd91a2fe2843bbd633ecc457a4ad\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019ve had Ministers come down here and we have had them mislead the New Zealand public\u2014we\u2019ve had them mislead the New Zealand public and not release information, and this is going to lead to New Zealanders paying more for their electricity and for the energy. We\u2019ve had a Minister that continually comes down here and misleads the public about Marsden Point. This was after he went to Marsden Point\u2014went around the country proclaiming he was going to reopen it. He didn\u2019t; he\u2019s failed. So what does he do? He comes here and he makes things up in this House. That Minister needs to actually show the New Zealand\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229bffab9b207b00ca135f89ed1ddf1668\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. Could the member elaborate on how this so-called member has made things up? The member would love to hear that story.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002291facbe36958919285d2a76467cc70d6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s not a point of order, Mr Jones. No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ae71edc431f60531dd5defba1ce3301f\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s not a point of order. I believe we\u2019re at time now. That\u2019s 30 seconds.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000677\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220e402b9aecf1fb46a99e4bf1f797a4c5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. Thank you very much.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b27d8609c612411686d517d0f9b09b28\u0022 data-id=\u0022b4a6bb69f0a53bc0e368d76b2e3d10d5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d8609c612411686d517d0f9b09b28\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b4a6bb69f0a53bc0e368d76b2e3d10d5\u0022\u003EDAVID MacLEOD (National\u2014New Plymouth) (17:56)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the committee report progress on this bill\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000679\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d144859f61cf407a8c5718fc2cd1a83e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s a very good idea, Mr MacLeod.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000680\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EProgress to be reported.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000682\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHouse resumed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000683\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220512bb18f312993bba82cc33e9da2856\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker, the committee has further considered the Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill and reports that it has made progress. I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the report be adopted\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000684\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000685\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EReport adopted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000686\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022328548269ef91b95ae156e2865ec6b21\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House is suspended for the dinner break and will resume at 7.30 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000687\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterItalicsCentred\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000688\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e3cb3a88b5a60e3c1d4ac243f3d9a298\u0022\u003ESittings of the House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000689\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022257e41f7825eeb4f3ee4153ce4051a72\u0022\u003EUrgency\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000690\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022251d5c2da792bf0f58efe2cc926abd2b\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The House is resumed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022e49942e044af5c7543425e03b1c150f9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000691\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e49942e044af5c7543425e03b1c150f9\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Leader of the House) (19:30)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\u0022\u003EThat urgency be accorded the committee stage of the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill, and the remaining stages of the Emergency Management Bill (No 2), the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill, and the Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000692\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EToday we accord urgency for one main reason: to progress the committee of the whole House stages of the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill. These are among the most ambitious changes this Government will make this term and we expect a fulsome and mature debate on the legislation before the House. Urgency is therefore being used predominantly to allow these bills to have their committee stages completed in one sitting, as opposed to being broken up over many days or weeks.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000693\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe have also included three other bills in the urgency motion\u2014bills which have been to select committee and reported back to the House. These bills are Government priorities to pass before Parliament dissolves, and with only four sitting weeks left in the Parliamentary year, they are being included in the urgency motion to make the most of the time that we have available. The Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill, in particular, has a commencement date of 2 November 2026, so it does need to be finished before the end of this term.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000694\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the motion be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000695\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000696\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000697\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000698\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000699\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000700\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222fa33947b9e33951e5d614f11091581f\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Planning Bill, the Natural Environment Bill, and the Emergency Management Bill (No 2).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000701\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002287d627068cbedb2a30da117240429e3d\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000702\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00227bba5b0d1a23ed16ba71abc4553880ab\u0022\u003EPlanning Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000703\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00222028ca19a51eea180d307172a5be7728\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000704\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u00221d5850c6aea955d97d01bdcd37661608\u0022\u003EPart 1 Preliminary provisions, proposed new clauses 10A and 10B, and Schedules\u00A01 and 12\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000705\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dd8c7982459869f30e4ba007e36ccd64\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the House is in committee on the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill. We start with the Planning Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000706\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMembers, I\u2019ve been advised that the Government proposes that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for RMA Reform be in the chair for some of this committee stage. Typically, Ministers will be in the chair for Government bills, and Speakers\u2019 ruling 82/4 states that if the Minister in charge of the bill is present in the Chamber they must be at the Table, otherwise the Government may decide who is best placed to be accountable for its legislation and that may be a Parliamentary Under-Secretary. The requirement under Standing Order 41 for a Minister to be in the Chamber at all times remains.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000707\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMembers will be aware the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill are heavily interrelated and that there are matters that are relevant to both bills. This will be taken into account when addressing relevancy in debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe start with Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 10\u2014\u201CPreliminary provisions\u201D\u2014including proposed new clauses 10A and 10B; Schedule 1, \u201CTransitional, savings, and related provisions\u201D; and Schedule 12, \u201CStatutory acknowledgements\u201D. The question is that Part 1 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022fe45891b20fb3c6ad980ece54a9bc210\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000709\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fe45891b20fb3c6ad980ece54a9bc210\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (19:34)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for clarifying that Part 1 includes Schedule 1 and Schedule 12. We\u2019ve had a very large Government Amendment Paper, which covers off the whole bill, and in this case I\u2019m going to go through that\u2014that is Amendment Paper 709. When I\u2019m referring to numbers, that\u2019s what I\u2019m planning to do; other people may, of course, do something different. I note that the Minister also has a different Amendment Paper that I\u2019m calling the \u201Csmall Amendment Paper\u201D, which relates to setting up a statutory office and also makes some changes around Plan Change 1 in the Waikato and Plan Change 2 in the Manawat\u016B. It would be useful if the Minister could confirm if we\u2019re expecting other Amendment Papers other than those two\u2014he\u2019s shaking his head, OK.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EOf course, we have many published Amendment Papers, as do the Greens, and we\u2019ve also got some amendments that will be tabled shortly, as well. Given the vastness of this legislation, they are not an abundance\u2014I don\u2019t think we\u2019d call it an abundance of amendments, but there are certainly some.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000711\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022326467de40b4f4c06044c963286866e9\u0022\u003EHon Phil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s a competitive market in Amendment Papers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000712\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002265718a513d16f72b8d4daed9a03d777c\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000713\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022df79af522c9d78659ab1bc1feb35bea2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: And on that note, we would be very happy as Chairs if clauses and Amendment Paper numbers were referred to, because we\u2019re not sure what\u2019s on what page all the time. If you could just refer to it, that would be great. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000714\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022230978b8ca212bf268e821b7a1ea0418\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: I will certainly do my best, Madam Chair, and do feel free to remind me, though, if I slip into some excitement about a provision and forget to tell you where to find it. But, as I say, I\u2019m looking at this Amendment Paper 709, which is the whole bill reproduced.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000715\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EPart 1 includes the definitions, it includes the purpose clause, it includes the Treaty clause, and then it includes some new amendments that the Minister has made. How I would like to deal with this is to go through clause by clause and then move on to Schedule 1 and then, if people have issues on Schedule 12, to go to Schedule 12.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000716\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a2aace5b1339db20f39642270245d607\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah\u2014part by part is good.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000717\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002205d40fb035d26233e26d833348f2e6a1\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: On that, if we start on the interpretation\u2014and I will look for some guidance here, because \u201Cdesignation\u201D, in the interpretation, \u201Chas the meaning given in clause 3 of Schedule 5\u201D, and that is not in Part 1\u2014Schedule 5\u2014but the reference is to Schedule 5. I would ask for some guidance on where the Chair would like that debate on the definition of \u201Cdesignation\u201D to happen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000718\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b7f9b2d76a5515a9f665d9f33cdb584e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll just take some advice on that. We do understand from our briefings that there is crossover between the two bills, so we\u2019re not going to be strictly saying one is different to the other, but I\u2019ll just take advice on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000719\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a05e9d066fe62562ca3795db8f6de3d1\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. This is within the same bill, anyway.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000720\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a3d1fc70e112dc4bb4a38aa4d5a69d57\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002266642c8a575d607d6ee73896f9005fda\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I\u2019ll move on, then.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000722\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227f15287794ef8c82f1ec25c019dd49ba\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s in Part 1, so that\u2019s fine.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d3ef92e652294f4d0436d77f3e4ebfbd\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Fine to talk about the definition of \u201Cdesignation\u201D. As I was saying, this is in clause 3 of Schedule 5, and whilst I don\u2019t think it\u2019s an amendment that the Minister has made, it appears to be a very wide definition. I\u2019m wondering if the Minister can speak to the breadth of that definition and the importance of the definition, because \u201Cdesignations\u201D pop up all the way through the legislation. Designations are an old and important tool to identify where a piece of infrastructure is intended to be. Most people would consider infrastructure to be things like roads or pipes, but the feeling is that this definition of \u201Cdesignation\u201D is now very wide, so some commentary on that would be useful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000724\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf I move on to \u201Cinfrastructure\u201D, I have an Amendment Paper, and my Amendment Paper is 695\u2014it\u2019s a published Amendment Paper\u2014and this is about the functioning of the economy being in that definition. This is an important point because it relates to the designations that I was just talking about\u2014designations are generally for infrastructure\u2014and a lot of these bills rely on infrastructure. My question, if I can just go for a little bit longer, is that (a) the definition of \u201Cinfrastructure\u201D has an inclusion of the functioning of the economy. That seems to be importing quite a different criteria from what infrastructure and designations have traditionally been for\u2014public work that local government is in charge of, and that is why they\u2019ve got the special treatment of being able to get designations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000725\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf you have these wider definitions, then that is going to undermine what previously has been thought of as public infrastructure. If the Minister can comment on that and why that\u2019s happening and whether or not I should be worried.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00223cc33737b19aa6de8af8c6eaebc8cab5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000726\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223cc33737b19aa6de8af8c6eaebc8cab5\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (19:40)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, thank you very much. I thank the member for her questions. Just as a prefatory remark, the Government has withdrawn one of the smaller Amendment Papers in relation to competitive land markets and has tabled a new Amendment Paper.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000727\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227f74bd1ee7bf5bcae8a956a4b00f187b\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: So it\u2019s a new one?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000728\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b91cc9a6ab164db7ec09e05c721b1877\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s a new one in relation to Plan Change 1 and 2 and the statutory urban land market officer. It\u2019s just been tabled in the last 20 minutes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000729\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002296008dff6ba8ac8c1cbc929f8d7200d9\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Does that include the plan changes as well?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000730\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221534f7494ecb6271cdfbe47e42d42c52\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. Yes it does; they\u2019re all grouped up together. But the urban land market officers had some refinements in the last few hours, which I think will meet with the member\u2019s approval.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000731\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224bf3e511bcd722c5fd81943168b33430\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: OK. Why don\u2019t you do more of that? More of that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000732\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e3a0959c37a5a59d93bf6ddd4bddaf6d\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Let\u2019s wait and see\u2014let\u2019s wait and see. We\u2019re starting as we hopefully mean to go on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000733\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to designation, I\u2019m advised that the definition is functionally the same as under the Resource Management Act, so that member\u2019s claim that it\u2019s a broader definition is not really correct.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000734\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to infrastructure, I was struggling a little bit to get at what the member was referring to. It\u2019s defined in clause 3, as the member is aware, and it\u2019s all there in black and white: it\u2019s a physical structure; it performs a public function, necessary to support one or more of the following; the functioning of the economy. But of course, infrastructure can be privately provided. Ownership is, frankly, neither here nor there. We have private infrastructure all over the country and we are likely to continue to do that. The key is whether or not infrastructure meets the definition laid out in clause 3.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000735\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002256ca33464c5b1155ca5da45269416562\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000736\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022175f1d18153f8380b5b27c8aa8937e4e\u0022\u003EHon Damien O\u0027Connor\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000737\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002277ac984eb55e4065d12f3f58ceb55fbe\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Arena Williams.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000738\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b679fbd2394dcca90bfc0711d3547b57\u0022\u003EHon Damien O\u0027Connor\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000739\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002289158e9ec7fed0ca181b3b4a2068ef89\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, sorry. Point of order, the Hon Damien O\u0027Connor.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022 data-id=\u0022fab21d5f91d7403964495ab8b3640407\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000740\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fab21d5f91d7403964495ab8b3640407\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR (Labour) (19:42)\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry. Look, I\u2019m just not sure the sound system is working. I don\u2019t want to accuse the Minister of mumbling, but it\u2019s really hard to hear him from here. I appreciate I\u2019m hard of hearing. I\u2019m not sure that they\u2019re coming through the speakers here in the seats.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000741\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022911aa462daebde46db649dd0f2522e78\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: OK. We\u2019ll make sure this is lined up and we\u2019ll just get someone to check the sound system. But in the meantime, if you can\u2019t hear something, let us know. Arena Williams.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022340915e9d4404b48386c03b895a9e685\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000742\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022340915e9d4404b48386c03b895a9e685\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (19:42)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just following on from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform\u2019s helpful clarification about his new Amendment Paper (AP) 709, just for ease of reference in this debate, can I ask him what parts of new 709 amend Part 1 of his proposed bill, so that we\u2019re just clear. Most of the amendments to the old 709\u2014this is the new 709\u2014were to Part 5, and so we are prepared to debate them then. But I\u2019m just clarifying with him whether there is anything unexpected that we need to cover off in this part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000743\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo the first substantive question for the Minister\u2014I\u2019m on page 19; we\u2019re still in section\u00A03, the definitions section\u2014I want to ask him about his narrowing of the new definition of \u201Cbuilt environment\u201D in this bill. The deletion of the word \u201Cincludes\u201D and insertion of \u201Cmeans all or any\u201D seems to make that definition more prescriptive and also narrower. The built environment question is important because it\u2019s one of the two halves of the conceptual architecture of the Planning Bill, so I\u2019m asking him here whether, firstly, it is his intention for (a) to (e) under that definition to be the exhaustive list of what \u201Cbuilt environment\u201D means, or whether it\u2019s also meant to have a natural reading. Then, if it is an exhaustive list\u2014and not \u201Cbuilt environment\u201D in the meaning of what we would usually mean by \u201Cbuilt environment\u201D\u2014has he intended to exclude commercial buildings, houses, schools, hospitals, stadiums? Why does this definition not include buildings?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000744\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThese definitions are the sorts of characteristic definitions that the Resource Management Act (RMA) used to give effect to some of those things like amenity values and characteristics of a neighbourhood under the old system. I can understand why his definition doesn\u2019t include those things, but it doesn\u2019t now seem to make sense for on where that term is used in the rest of the Planning Bill if it excludes those things, which are things that are made by people in the environment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000745\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also want to ask: the old RMA sort of equivalent definition included a specific mention of public spaces that are not green spaces. He hasn\u2019t defined green spaces in the same way as the old system. Again, I can appreciate why he has done that, but then how do you read in to these rules public spaces like town squares, civic plazas, streetscapes; reading closer to things like neighbourhood values and characteristics of a particular urban space? But there are also physical things which seem to be left out of this definition as it is now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000746\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThose first questions are about the conceptual nature of the definition. How are we meant to read it? Then did he mean to exclude those things which are included in the natural meaning of the word?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000747\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also want to then turn to page 21 at the top\u2014we\u2019re at decommissioning. New AP 709, I assume, still\u2014sorry, I\u2019m talking about 709, which is the big one. This creates a new offshore renewable energy (ORE) regime specifically for decommissioning rather than creating a general concept of decommissioning. It\u2019s important to distinguish those things because there are also special powers within this bill that distinguish that sort of function from other ORE generation activities. For example, elsewhere in the bill there are provisions that say that a planning consent can be cancelled for generation of infrastructure, but decommissioning can\u2019t be cancelled. So it makes sense to have those two regimes\u2014that\u2019s not the question. The question is: why is there not an equivalent regime for decommissioning other sorts of infrastructure? Reading through the definitions, that is also something which seems to have a special statutory power: waste facilities, quarries, mines, landfills, Huntly. Why is there not that specific power in the planning regime now, where decommissioning of that sort of assets hasn\u2019t been provided for as well?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000748\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002220965c75929fa22a85f018142ba59f49\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The honourable Minister. I understand the sound system\u2019s working. I think it was the direction of the microphone, but give me the thumbs up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022b50dd4d7806d7e0943225c3024d3f25a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000749\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b50dd4d7806d7e0943225c3024d3f25a\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (19:47)\u003C/span\u003E: It might have been me. I was muttering away. My apologies for that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000750\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EJust to deal with a few of these issues. In relation to the member\u2019s first question around the\u2014let\u2019s just call it the competitive land markets Amendment Paper (AP)\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000751\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227fdfd495b675acbd58491d327cefe109\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, OK. Good.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000752\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225ddbb5ff26ea5a5e8dbaad9ac076a2e1\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Cool\u2014CULM, which is a tabled amendment. The member asked: does it affect Part 1? We\u2019re just checking that. I think there might be a minor change there, but it\u2019s largely later in the bill. But in the interests of debate and transparency and having a good heave-ho at it, I wanted to Table it as soon as possible.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000753\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EBuilt environment: again, I was struggling a bit to understand where the member was going with this when it doesn\u2019t exclude stadiums\u2014stadiums are structures\u2014it doesn\u2019t exclude many of the things she said. I mean, it\u2019s \u201Call or any of the following: (a) people and communities: (b) land and the identified values and characteristics: (c) structures: (d) infrastructure: (e) the surface of water\u201D. Of course, you take an ordinary statutory interpretation approach to all of the interpretative provisions, as you do in all legislation. Nothing really turns on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000754\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fc03feda660e11d8881fff16431e3ea4\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: It doesn\u2019t seem to say buildings.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000755\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226338ece9164d877916854c5138a67942\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: It does; it says \u201Cstructures\u201D. Buildings are structures.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000756\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002209334ecdf0d853acb68513ca91726e5e\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Well\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000757\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002215ac8ca892f49492f9e15c22535d4498\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, they are. Look, sorry, but they are.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000758\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f12381998d596902e7086e080886ed26\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Helpful to have it on the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000759\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022802689bff602a9c346a9d9f1fee90c7d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s on the record.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000760\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002253cf7cbd10ebdb749d5e42734b599654\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: OK. Well, if the Planning Bill fails on that one, then I\u2019ll cop to that, but I\u2019m not sure it\u2019s going to fail.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000761\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPublic and green spaces: I suspect we\u2019re going to have a bit of debate about this. There\u2019s nothing to stop the councils and those who do these sorts of things, from public realm improvements, from reserves, from parks, from public squares\u2014nothing to stop that. The suggestion that there are prohibitions on that are wrong.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000762\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EDecommissioning: again, I was not 100 percent sure where the member was going. The definition listed in the bill is an update, essentially, because when the bill was first drafted, we had the Offshore Renewable Energy Act 2026 pass, which now has passed, so it\u2019s a cross-reference back to that in relation to the ORE generation infrastructure activities, or \u201Core\u201D\u2014but it\u2019s the opposite of ore because it\u2019s offshore renewable energy. But, you know, I found that amusing late last night.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022032e77d109bf8eeaeddcbbc3876a09a7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000763\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022032e77d109bf8eeaeddcbbc3876a09a7\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (19:50)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m happy for the Minister responsible for RMA Reform to explain his \u201Core\u201D joke some more.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000764\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022659f493e43c252f1aca4ffb14663b87e\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: Iron ore.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000765\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002222ddd490ece0f05e7a2fa40adb2e2bd4\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, got it, thank you\u2014thanks, thanks. Going back to the definition of infrastructure, where the Minister said that ownership is neither here or there, the point of my Amendment Paper 695 is to delete clause 3(a)(ii)(A), \u201Cthe functioning of the economy\u201D, because at the moment, how infrastructure is defined, it says, \u201Cis necessary to support any 1 or more of the following:\u201D. One could simply be the functioning of the economy, so, presumably, a retail shop could therefore be defined as infrastructure. It means \u201Ca physical structure, facility, or network that\u2014(i) performs a public function; or\u201D\u2014and this \u201Cor\u201D is important, talking about \u201Cor\u201Ds\u2014\u201Cis necessary to \u2026 (A) the functioning of the economy\u201D. That seems to be an incredibly wide definition of infrastructure. Even if the Minister thinks that ownership is here nor there, it does seem to be opening infrastructure up to, say, shops.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000766\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I\u2019ve got two more points I\u2019d like to raise in this contribution. One is that I should shortly have on the Table an amendment for \u201Cwell-functioning urban environment\u201D that goes to the point the Minister was just making about the importance of public space and that it\u2019s very clear that councils are able to plan for it. This is particularly important when so much of this legislation is about, as the Government says, the enjoyment of private property rights\u2014so, enabling people to build out almost all of their land, which means that there\u2019s going to be more need for the green space that is often provided for on people\u2019s private properties to be in public space.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000767\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAlso, we\u2019re worried, with settings and commentary around rates caps and those things, what is going to happen to this public sphere? How will it be funded? Does the Minister consider that there needs to be other tools to provide for that, particularly when we\u2019re talking about intensification of areas, which, you know, I think is a good thing to be doing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000768\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen my third question for the Minister on these definitions is\u2014and I know he\u2019s already talked on the decommissioning and the offshore renewable energy, but are there any policy changes in the other changes that he\u2019s made in his Amendment Paper\u2014so not what went to select committee\u2014except for, of course, the Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe, which is, obviously, a very big policy change, but I think we\u2019ll want to speak on that in a more substantive provision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000769\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe three questions are: aside from the Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe, does his Amendment Paper include policy changes to the definitions? Will he consider my \u201Cwell-functioning urban environment\u201D definition, that is more specific around the importance of public space and planning for place? And would he also consider my Amendment Paper 695, that removes the functioning of the economy from being one thing that can in itself define a physical structure as infrastructure?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022c02744a04e91018f8f3fb1927e8b2437\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000770\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c02744a04e91018f8f3fb1927e8b2437\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (19:54)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m at page 25, at iwi participation agreement. This definition is another question, really, about plain language phrase that the Amendment Paper seeks to define. So, first question is: what are we intending to do here by defining an iwi participation agreement? The answer isn\u2019t as simple as, you know, an iwi participation agreement, on its normal reading, has to be something which is the sort of agreement which is entered into through proposed new clause 198A, because there are plenty of times where those words mean an agreement which is entered into by a local authority and an iwi organisation. For instance, agreements between Auckland\u2019s Independent M\u0101ori Statutory Board (IMSB) and the iwi who appoint the members of the IMSB, or arrangements between the governance entity that manages the \u014Cr\u0101kei lands at Takaparawh\u0101 between local body and iwi representatives, and how they are appointed. Those are iwi participation agreements which exist between local authorities and the iwi, and they also involve an exercise of public power that is being exercised by the local authority. Then there are other sorts of iwi participation arrangements which will not involve the exercise of that sort of public power but will still exist between a local authority and an iwi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000771\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is: firstly, are those iwi participation agreements that exist now more like the written documents which I think the Minister responsible for RMA Reform is envisioning under 198A\u2014are they extinguished because they haven\u2019t been entered into under the new process of 198A? Or, if you have been through a process which is similar to the process described in 198A, do they now exist, and is there sort of a savings provision between those arrangements that exist that are written down on paper and the new ones?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000772\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESecond question is around those sorts of arrangements\u2014the \u014Cr\u0101kei lands arrangements are a good example. They are not saved by his transitional arrangements in the statutory acknowledgments set out in Schedule 12. That statutory body is a creature of\u2014it\u2019s acknowledged in the settlement of the T\u0101maki iwi that was made in 2020; that body has iwi participation arrangements and agreements that make it able to constitute itself. So those will continue to exist because they\u2019re a creature of other legislation, but are councils sort of needing to formalise those arrangements again under this new regime, and why aren\u2019t they saved by Schedule 12 if they don\u2019t have to do that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000773\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also want to ask him particularly about things like right of first refusal land acquisitions: those do need documented iwi participation agreements because they are commercial arrangements about how iwi will participate in a council disposing of land where that land has a right of first refusal that has been granted in the past, either by a council or by the Crown. So do councils need to re-enter into those arrangements, or do they exist outside of the statutory meaning of an iwi participation agreement in this law? Those agreements are commercially valuable to iwi; they have a value. So are we now seeking to renegotiate the way that iwi participate in those, and how does the Minister sort of conceptualise\u2014like, what is this provision trying to do if it doesn\u2019t have any effect on those arrangements as they exist?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00221edc4c27e967466018251e69c398d6e5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000774\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221edc4c27e967466018251e69c398d6e5\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (19:58)\u003C/span\u003E: The member has spent four minutes answering her own question. \u201CIwi participation agreements\u201D means an agreement entered in accordance with proposed new clauses 198A to C. They\u2019re not iwi participation agreements as defined by the Planning Bill. They are other types of agreements, but they are not iwi participation agreements as laid out in this bill. The member just has to read the bill. There\u2019s a whole schema laid out in new clauses 198A to C, which her colleague said we were going to get into later, but, you know, there\u2019s a schema there around what they look like and what they are allowed to include. They are, essentially, the replacement for the Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe agreements that we have decided we should not continue with. So, right of first refusal (RFR), separate agreements that councils have got\u2014you know, it\u2019s all fine. It\u2019s not relevant to this bill because they are separate creations; they are separate vehicles, mechanisms\u2014whatever. So that deals with both those two issues, including the RFR acquisition issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000775\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn relation to Rachel Brooking\u2019s points, look, I\u2019m comfortable with the definition of infrastructure as it\u2019s laid out. Of course, there is the ability through national policy direction and national standards to be more specific. That, I think, is an important point to bear in mind is that the bill is the bill, which will hopefully become an Act\u2014the way the scheme is designed is national policy direction, of which we\u2019ve published the first illustrative draft today\u2014and I\u2019d encourage members to have a look at this very coherent but yet comprehensive document that lays out direct\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000776\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d52c571cdb246f6abf50a39de1a66f7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226bf4d015672ca9fc6a418316832d9695\u0022\u003EGlen Bennett\u003C/span\u003E: Informercial.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000777\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d865cb54168283b3852a493c71b458d5\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000778\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d52c571cdb246f6abf50a39de1a66f7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228f32c26590ccf7141dde6723d7600651\u0022\u003EGlen Bennett\u003C/span\u003E: Informercial.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000779\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d47fa7db5c2752a6ba3c4b84e031cad1\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, OK. Anway, the national policy direction, which some people out there have been surprised to discover we already have under the Resource Management Act (RMA)\u2014a national policy statement on renewal energy, for example, urban development, which members will be very familiar with. But it\u2019s an attempt to bring much more coherency and structure to how we do national direction. So, of course, that will flesh out some of the stuff that\u2019s in the bills. I suspect that will be a recurrent theme going through the debates over the next few hours.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000780\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn relation to public space, look, I don\u2019t have a huge amount more to say then what I\u2019ve already said, which is I\u2019m a believer in public spaces. I think they are important. The bills do not distract away from the idea of public spaces, the public realm, parks and reserves, and placemaking by councils.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000781\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b192653b613c4d2b0f96b3c3037591a3\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: They don\u2019t focus on them either.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000782\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aa739f1d01dd69cbde5f6c1e00752d38\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000783\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c0bc8d1b1495c7ae6bd732bf75845673\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: They don\u2019t focus on them either.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000784\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cc631a8b9f938e289a7deca5b8ab070d\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, to be honest, that response and the sort of exchange, I think, neatly illustrates maybe one of the divides, which is the bill can\u2019t do everything\u2014that\u2019s the whole point. The RMA sought to do literally everything and provide a statutory authority and directives here, there, and everywhere. That was actually part of the issue. So, yes, the legislation doesn\u2019t say a lot about public spaces, but that\u2019s not to say that public spaces aren\u2019t important. Legislation does not have to speak to every element of every aspect of society\u2014that\u2019s potentially one of the dividing lines between us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000785\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn relation to her very good question around policy changes in Amendment Paper 709, through the interpretation stuff, the answer is no. There are some minor tweaks and stuff like that, but not much.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022 data-id=\u0022b761c8112207288f7307bf232ada30ff\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000786\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b761c8112207288f7307bf232ada30ff\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON (Green) (20:02)\u003C/span\u003E: T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Madam Chair. I wanted to ask the Minister some questions from the amendments tabled by my colleague Tamatha Paul around clause 3, looking at the iwi participation agreements that are to be developed. In her amendment, tabled at about 5 o\u2019clock this afternoon, around clause 3, we\u2019ve got \u201Cafter subclause (b) to insert (c) to include hap\u016B\u201D. So for iwi M\u0101ori operating in the Resource Management Act (RMA) over a number of years, the voice of hap\u016B marae have actually been those that have tangibly been doing a lot of the work in the RMA for a number of years. With the ability for us to add hap\u016B in specifically, could provide the space for hap\u016B groupings to come through and strengthen their relationship in a formal way to provide that mechanism to initiate those participation mechanisms with local council.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000787\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis would be a win because even under Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe it was very iwi focused. In this legislation, we\u2019re still very iwi focused again. So as a tono to the Minister, how can we provide space for hap\u016B who are at place, who have that close relationship to whenua, to moana, to taonga, to be able to initiate those participation agreements and mechanisms through this bill and with local government into the future? That\u2019s one p\u0101tai.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000788\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen, the following amendment from Tamatha Paul, again under clause 3\u2014same area. So we\u2019ve done: insert (c) for hap\u016B. I\u2019d like to also recommend that we could look at the way that we could increase or enhance the way that we can define what a M\u0101ori person is in Aotearoa New Zealand and provide that additional definition. So in the amendment provided, subclause (c), under qualifying resident (d) \u201Cinsert the definition does apply to a M\u0101ori person or entity as defined by section 2 of the Maori Community Development Act\u201D. So in clause 3, after the heading of mana whenua, if we were to insert what M\u0101ori means\u2014a person of the M\u0101ori race of New Zealand\u2014could include also the descendants of. This could provide a helpful clarity in the bill in terms of the distinction between a qualifying resident and a distinction with tangata whenua or iwi M\u0101ori.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000789\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo those are a couple of tono from me. Knowing that hap\u016B have that very close relationship and have working knowledge of the RMA of the past and they still currently have their hands on the steering wheel, but have nothing in statute to formalise that participation and the way that they can formalise their arrangements with local authorities. And then ensuring that we\u2019re clear as to the distinction between M\u0101ori and the qualifying resident. Kia ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022 data-id=\u0022fa379205811d8933816e0a6524d401da\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000790\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fa379205811d8933816e0a6524d401da\u0022\u003EDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (20:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair and Minister. I just have a question around clause 7(1)(a) and clause 7(1)(b). I found that quite interesting that the \u201CAct does not apply to any of the following: (a) warships of any State other than New Zealand: [and] (b) aircraft of the defence forces of any State other than New Zealand:\u201D. One thing that this House knows very well is that Kiwis take a keen interest in what warships from visiting forces actually have on board. When I think of a warship as I know it, they\u2019ve got the electromagnetic spectrum, and if one is alongside and that spectrum management isn\u2019t sorted, then it can shut down a whole cellular network. It also has things like HE for high-explosive munitions aboard, and large quantities of fuel, which is quite a concern for Kiwis. I was just wondering what your thoughts were around that, particularly if you could explain what environmental risks that you see could arise from exempting foreign Government ships and military aircraft from this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022818b240fa9344336d0a22a6cd5d48220\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000791\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022818b240fa9344336d0a22a6cd5d48220\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:07)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Well, let\u2019s deal with the last question first. It\u2019s a direct carry over from the Resource Management Act 1991\u2014no changes there. I think it is what it is\u2014it\u2019s sensible.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000792\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn relation to the question from the Green member earlier, there is no definition of hap\u016B authorities. The bill includes requirements for consultation with iwi authorities on national instruments and plans; iwi authority being defined as the authority that represents an iwi and it is recognised by that iwi as having authority to do so. I\u2019m also not supportive of Ms Paul\u2019s amendment. We believe that there is adequate participation provided for for M\u0101ori through the clauses in their interpretation clause, in the clause that we\u2019re talking about, and the other forgoing provisions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022 data-id=\u00220d569ce99db5721b38efc848ff4d90f7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000793\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220d569ce99db5721b38efc848ff4d90f7\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green\u2014Rongotai) (20:08)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just coming back to the definitions, we had a substantive Amendment Paper from the Minister, 709, drop not too long ago, so I just have a series of questions that affect both clause 3 and clause 6. I just was wondering why significant non-compliance as a definition\u2014this is on page 30 of the Amendment Paper\u2014has been deleted in the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper. Then there were some amendments made by the select committee to that definition, but now it\u2019s just been totally deleted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000794\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EClause 6(5) through to (12), which have a lot of detail around enforcement orders, infringement notices, offences under the Act, all of that\u2019s been deleted. I\u2019m just wondering if the Minister can tell us, has that been moved to a different part of the bills?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000795\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002209d38b625bda6cd787e538223fc9a561\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: What clauses are you talking about?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221a3a1d749cb4bf06a6c979f690e88a32\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER\u003C/span\u003E: Clause 3, the definition of significant non-compliance on page 30\u2014it\u2019s at the very bottom of the page. This is on the Amendment Paper 709. Then clause 6(5) through (12), and that\u2019s on pages 35 and 36 of the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper 709. I can keep going with questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000797\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI guess I\u2019ll just use the rest of this call to reiterate concerns around the definition of \u201Cinfrastructure\u201D and whether, in the context of planning rules, infrastructure should be somewhat limited to something that is performing a public function. That would be, under the definition of infrastructure on page 24, Amendment Paper 709, under clause 3, definition of infrastructure, subclause (a), paragraph (i), having \u201Cperforms a public function;\u201D and \u201Cis necessary to support any 1 or more of the following:\u201D would make sense. Because in the context in which we\u2019re talking about infrastructure, it\u2019s almost always in the context of it having some sort of wider public function, not a strictly private function.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000798\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s the context in which we would have designations and planning rules and try to accommodate infrastructure, right? As if it\u2019s serving some sort of more broad function than just one for a private landowner. I\u2019m just curious why we wouldn\u2019t have an \u201Cand\u201D in that definition and in subclause (b) under infrastructure\u2014same situation. Just, you know, whether it\u2019s a natural feature or a physical structure or a facility or a network, it would perform a public or semi-public function \u201Cand\u201D is necessary for, one of the other, (A), (B), (C), or (D).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022b9ff35486bcf95f2a94e18f67de6a013\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000799\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b9ff35486bcf95f2a94e18f67de6a013\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:11)\u003C/span\u003E: Very briefly, we\u2019ve kind of canvassed the infrastructure debate and I\u2019m comfortable with the definition that is in the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000800\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn relation to the member\u2019s previous question, I\u2019m advised that \u201Csignificant non-compliance\u201D is contextual and best defined using a dictionary definition of \u201Csignificance\u201D applied to the context relevant to the non-compliance. In plain English, that means it\u2019s very hard to define through a bill what significant non-compliance is. I mean, you either comply or you don\u2019t comply, and then it\u2019s either significant or it isn\u2019t, and we\u2019re just relying on the ordinary construction of that to apply when it comes to non-compliance and a judgment as to whether or not that is significant or not. So essentially not defining it in the bill, so it\u2019s a drafting thing that decided.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022 data-id=\u002288814ab807c533723b810ed359383909\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000801\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002288814ab807c533723b810ed359383909\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B) (20:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to make the first of a few interventions on the question of competitive urban land markets, which is one of the features of this bill. There are many things in this bill and its companion that Labour does not support\u2014and I think members will know we\u2019ll be voting against the bill, but the provisions\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000802\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022176bbaf1393fdc87a794078caa453777\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Could you please point me to the page that you\u2019re on?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000803\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c21877ae06e2e036357b962e6b331c04\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah. I\u2019m going to be speaking to Part 1, clauses 2 and 3.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000804\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228b4652b9dafa5ed00f089cee0d128da3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000805\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c45e39a1eec7cba708735dd90d4d6281\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: But the provisions on competitive land markets are ones that we do support. I just want to note that I think the cross-party consensus around competitive land markets, and how essential they are to housing affordability, to the productivity of our cities, is a real bright spot in this policy area of housing and of our cities over recent years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000806\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn relation to Part 1, clause 2, I just really want to question in fact the decision that has been made to allow commencement of these provisions to happen, triggered by some future executive decision. I\u2019d be interested to hear from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform why that has been chosen. I worry that some future colleague who is the Minister who may not be committed to this particular area of work would have the option open to them just to let it sit indefinitely. That\u2019s not something that we would like to see, so why does it\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000807\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e91437019cf6661bf3d993b356007ccf\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019re just checking: clause 2 is the preliminary clause\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000808\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ffb97020129fdf4b07487fcc1041556\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000809\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220c6a6c8fb566f1dcf332a8951500e27a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: So we\u2019re actually on Part 1. We\u2019re not\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000810\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002216069b2bf9c83b814d5ddd25db55e2c0\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, I beg your pardon. I was speaking to\u2014OK. All right, I shall leave it then. I\u2019ll come back to it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022cb61b87bd8921f2f1ed538b8949130d2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000811\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cb61b87bd8921f2f1ed538b8949130d2\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (20:14)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E] He was saying a nice theme there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000812\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e46922518b86051e5b79ffef69127851\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I was trying to find it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000813\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bc367974e6009dbac713fccbc30197ff\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair. The purpose\u2014I\u2019m moving on now to clause 4. I\u2019ve finished with the definitions, and this normally would be in a very important clause in the legislation, but here it\u2019s surprisingly not. It\u2019s: \u201CThe purpose of this Act is to provide for the enjoyment of land by establishing a framework for planning and regulating the use and development of land.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is clearly the intention of this Government to be a totally enabling Act, and \u201Cenjoyment of land\u201D is an interesting turn of phrase\u2014that\u2019s probably new to New Zealand legislation. But I have an Amendment Paper, and that is Amendment Paper 693, and that is to amend the purpose and that is to be: \u201CThe purpose of this Act is to enable development, high-quality infrastructure, and primary sector growth within the environmental protections provided for by the Natural Environment Act 2025.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000815\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m wondering if the Minister responsible for RMA Reform could comment on my proposed amendment and why it is that his legislation doesn\u2019t do that knitting together, that integration. I know Simon Court has made statements before that he is opposed to the integration and that these bills represent the end of integrated management in New Zealand. Would the Minister consider an amendment to the purpose clause to reference those environmental protections that are supposedly found in his Natural Environment Bill? That is my question on the purpose clause.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00227f5900756a243fb9a3c94747720525db\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000816\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227f5900756a243fb9a3c94747720525db\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:16)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, thank you. The purpose of the bill is an important provision. The purpose clause is a descriptive clause of what the bill does, and it does not have a decision-making role throughout the system. That is provided through the specific provisions based on the funnel approach, which members\u2014certainly members who have sat on the Environment Committee\u2014will be familiar with. We start with goals, then you move to national policy direction, then down through standards, down through spatial plans and land use plans, down to individual consenting level. One of the central aims of the legislation is to avoid the endless re-litigation about what the purpose of the Planning Bill or the Natural Environment Bill purposes are.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000817\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Resource Management Act (RMA) has produced a situation where everybody has to cite the purpose clause of the RMA and we end up with endless debates about what \u201Csustainable management\u201D means. The purpose clause of this legislation is a descriptive clause. It does not have a role in decision making through the system. Instead, we do that through the specific provisions based on the funnel approach.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000818\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe member makes a comment about the enjoyment of land being a change, and that\u2019s deliberate. Central government policy\u2014certainly of this Government\u2014is to elevate property rights in the system. The member might notice that there is not a broad reference to property rights in the legislation. The way we have decided to emphasise that is by talking about\u2014or at least focusing on\u2014the enjoyment of land, which means being able to have the freedom to use land and not be unreasonably affected by other land uses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002242067e22c7a349218b3b868f58eda79d\u0022 data-id=\u002213701c20bfb3f2242e84c89ea823d2f7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000819\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002242067e22c7a349218b3b868f58eda79d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002213701c20bfb3f2242e84c89ea823d2f7\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK (Labour\u2014Nelson) (20:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to jump possibly slightly ahead\u2014but noting that I\u2019m sure colleagues have still got questions on other clauses\u2014but this is just in relation to my portfolio of oceans and fisheries. It\u2019s Part 1, page 41 of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform\u2019s Amendment Paper 709, and we\u2019re looking at clause 10B, \u201CRules that control fishing\u201D. I just want to turn first to 10B(1), which states that \u201CNo instrument made under this Act may include a rule that controls fishing within the coastal marine area.\u201D I\u2019m quite interested in this quite specific clause on the back of conversations around the Fisheries Amendment Bill, which has been stalled. There has been significant discussion around biodiversity impacts around fishing rules, around quota, but also around where fishing can occur\u2014so not just the numbers, but which parts of the various parts of the system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000820\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI understand that under the Resource Management Act, regional councils do have the role to be able to restrict fishing within the coastal marine area on very narrow grounds. Those narrow grounds are around maintaining indigenous biodiversity. This clause looks to be far more permissive than what is currently within the rules. It has been quite a hot topic of conversation. In fact, it\u2019s a pretty hot topic of conversation at the moment, when you think about what\u2019s happening with whitebait down the Waimakariri. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000821\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnd so, I\u2019m interested in understanding from the Minister\u2014because the challenge we\u2019ve got is this piece hasn\u2019t gone through select committee, and so as the spokesperson, I don\u2019t get the opportunity, through colleagues who sit on the Environment Committee, to ask these questions further around exactly why this has been done. Has there been lobbying from people in order to include this so that, essentially, no restrictions can be applied by a regional council? At the moment, they can apply a restriction, but it is very narrow. That\u2019s appropriate, because we often look at\u2014and this has been a really important discussion as part of the Fisheries Amendment Bill, which colleagues from the National Party have actually participated in in a really useful way: it\u2019s not just around stock A, and how stock A and stock B might interact with each other; it\u2019s actually the entire biodiversity of how fisheries stock interact with the sea floor\u2014the kelp, the other creatures and critters that are in that part of the coastal marine environment. So I\u2019m really interested\u2014this is a very hot topic of conversation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000822\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf you look further at new clause 10B(2), it appears, just on my reading\u2014and, again, this is the challenge of not being able to interrogate this at select committee. My reading looks like this mostly interacts with the Fisheries Act\u2014well, not so much with the Fisheries Act, but with other Acts that provide customary fishing. I\u2019d just be interested in the Minister\u2019s response on that. Then, the definition in new clause 10B(3) gives, essentially, a definition of what the instrument is. The reason I\u2019ve asked about this is when we talk about regional spatial plans and draft regional spatial plans, I assume that those are the types of spatial plans that a regional council would be putting in place that would make these types of applications. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000823\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m certainly interested in new clause 10B(1), as it looks more permissive than what regional councils can currently do. That is of concern to me as spokesperson, particularly in the context of the conversations we\u2019ve been having around the Fisheries Act and the need for us to maintain a, what we call, an ecosystem approach within that Act. That\u2019s been a matter of controversy. There are a lot of examples that are out there in the public domain, and, I think, a better understanding now across the House of how fisheries operate with us in these environments\u2014that it isn\u2019t just a straightforward, \u201CLook at how much fish you have and how much you take away and how much you\u2019re left with.\u201D It\u2019s actually about how everything within the ocean environment interacts with each other\u2014and, of course, how land and water use and the land-based environment impacts on what\u2019s happening in the coastal environment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000824\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m interested in the Minister\u2019s comments on the reason for new clause 10B(2) being introduced, but, most specifically, I would like a robust\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000825\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002224df4c60690762ca7cd3d76fe87aac09\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019ve got the question. He\u2019s actually just waiting to answer your question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00227d501337df1c6beda67d84c3e9443b6b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000826\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227d501337df1c6beda67d84c3e9443b6b\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:23)\u003C/span\u003E: Let me just firstly deal with Julie Anne Genter\u2019s question from\u2014I don\u2019t know\u201420 minutes or so ago in relation to clause 6(5) to (12) on Amendment Paper 709. I\u2019m advised that that has actually moved, rather than being deleted, to clause 27(1)(a). So there you go.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000827\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ERighty-o. On the fisheries: we\u2019ve made a decision, which was reflected in the bill\u2014or it\u2019s the Amendment Paper now\u2014but councils will no longer be able to make planning rules that control fishing in the coastal marine area. Basically, we\u2019re trying to reduce the regulatory overlap with the Fisheries Act. What we\u2019ve been seeing is the Resource Management Act (RMA) kind of creeping into the fisheries space and the Government\u2019s view is that, essentially, the Fisheries Act should deal with fisheries, and the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill\u2014hopefully, Acts\u2014will deal with the environmental effects, will deal with everything else. And so, under the changes made by the Government Amendment Paper, councils will no longer be able to make planning rules that control fishing in the coastal marine area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000828\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are existing RMA fishing controls that have been made to protect values in the coastal marine area, such as biodiversity and natural character. Natural character is now being dealt with through the Planning Bill, and so the Planning Bill needs to clarify that rules that control fishing are excluded, in addition to being excluded under the Natural Environment Bill. Current council fishing controls in Northland, Bay of Plenty, and Marlborough will remain in place during the transition period until the new system comes online\u2014estimated for 2030\u2014as part of their respective RMA plans. Existing RMA plan-change processes involving proposed fishing controls and plans that are not subject to plan stop will also continue to progress during the transition period. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000829\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Government\u2019s decision does not remove the requirement to manage the environmental effects of fishing. The Government\u2019s view is that these controls should be considered through fisheries legislation and other marine protection frameworks, rather than through council planning rules. For example, the purpose of the Fisheries Act includes providing for the utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability. So, basically, we\u2019re just seeking to roll the fisheries into the Fisheries Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u00222fcaea15e2733337d4307378e8b30ac5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000830\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222fcaea15e2733337d4307378e8b30ac5\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (20:25)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. It\u2019s a real pleasure to be able to be part of sparking off this assessment of bills which hold such serious implications for the entire country and for our future. I want to particularly start with questioning the Minister about the purpose statement of the Planning Bill, because what was absolutely clear from the information and the advice that we were provided with at the Environment Committee was that the descriptions of the purpose clauses across both bills, but particularly this planning one, is that it is a purpose clause with no purpose.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think the thing that I really want to understand with the assessment of this and where the Government has actually got to in deciding to retain where they are with the purpose clause of the Planning Bill, is why it was not considered that, for example, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment specifically put in front of us\u2014and I\u2019m sure it has made its way to the Minister\u2014very clear suggestions for how these bills, particularly this Planning Bill, could actually provide clarity and direction and have a purpose with a purpose. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000832\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe currently have that the purpose of this Act is \u201Cto provide for the enjoyment of land by establishing a framework for planning and regulating the use and development of land\u201D. Now, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment raises the question, as did many submitters across the committee stage, of whose enjoyment and for what purposes. As the Government insists that this is going to be practical and pragmatic and this is going to provide certainty in all these things, the enjoyment of land is not one that many people anticipate is something that provides that certainty. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has suggested the purpose of this Act is \u201Cto enable development, high-quality infrastructure, and primary-sector growth within the environmental protections provided for by the Natural Environment Act\u201D. Now, that would actually spawn integration. It would actually spawn direction. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000833\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhy has the Minister changed so many things about the bills in these last-minute amendments and not gone to the primary purposes that would actually offer some direction, some workability? I\u2019d really like to hear that, because I think it\u2019s such a critical area where these bills have gone wrong. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022320babbe4122226f6c79f0f1e47dc8ea\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000834\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022320babbe4122226f6c79f0f1e47dc8ea\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:29)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve spent about three to four minutes on this a couple of times now. We\u2019re deliberately having a descriptive purpose clause that does not\u2014I mean, the member says we might as well not even have one. I mean, that\u2019d be great, to be honest, but the whole point is to not end up with endless debate in the courts and councils and through individual consent applications around what the purpose of the planning bill is, but if that ends up happening, we\u2019ll have failed. We\u2019re trying to get away from that, and so it\u2019s a descriptive clause that does the bare minimum. It does what it says on the tin: provides for the enjoyment of land, establishes a framework. Essentially, another way of putting it is that it\u2019s a framework clause. It basically says, \u201CThere\u2019s a framework for that. See the rest of the Act or the bill, see the national policy direction, see the national standards for planning and regulating the use of planning.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000835\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe member makes a claim that she doesn\u2019t know anyone who anticipates the enjoyment of land as something that people might want to do\u2014well, respectfully, that might be her perspective. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000836\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002285ee56c0fb771d5ce1d47d7d24f49e29\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: So what does it mean?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000837\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c5e9be6aa383c263e8f52a2723cac7fa\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Respectfully, the idea of property rights, I would argue, is fundamental to a modern market-based economy and the utilisation of land is an important thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000838\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe member says, \u201CWhy did I not listen to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment?\u201D. Well, I\u2019ve got huge respect for the Rt Hon Simon Upton, but he is not the oracle. The fact that he has been involved in the Resource Management Act (RMA) for 30 years and is the author of the modern RMA means that he knows a lot about it, but it does not mean that he is an oracle. Ministers and the Government are entitled to disagree with him. I agree with him on many things, but his suggested purpose clause is, essentially, just a modern-day version of the RMA purpose clause, which is partly why we are in this mess. We are deliberately taking a different approach and we stand by that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022 data-id=\u002265643af3567a5ec9d0443c4edebb831a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000839\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002265643af3567a5ec9d0443c4edebb831a\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR (Labour) (20:31)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. For all of those people who are tuned in tonight looking for a reform of the Resource Management Act (RMA) and refinement, I\u2019d just like them to look at this pile of paper here, which is what this Government is trying to pass. In referring to Part 1 here, I\u2019d like to point to\u2014well, the Minister was trying to explain his way out of why he should utilise the term \u201Cenjoyment\u201D. If ever there\u2019s a \u201Cwoke\u201D terminology, it\u2019s \u201Cenjoyment\u201D, and I\u2019m absolutely flabbergasted as someone who has been a farmer and someone who actually loves the land and really wants to have a bit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000840\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf the Minister, as he explained, was setting a framework, and if it was, as he said, to protect property rights, then why not put it in the purpose? Why not state it here if the objective of the Government is to protect property rights? There\u2019s not just individual property rights; there\u2019s public property rights and there are wider property rights. My question to him is: please explain more about \u201Cenjoyment\u201D, because I know people who have land and their enjoyment of the land is digging it up. I know people who own land and their enjoyment of the land is grazing animals on it. I know people who own land and enjoyment is planting trees.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000841\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are many, many ways of enjoying land, but what the Minister has said is that the primary objective or the purpose is not to allow all those things, because I can tell you what\u2014the member over there will understand: if he\u2019s a farmer and the person next door starts planting trees, he\u2019d be the first one to jump up and down and object. He\u2019ll say, \u201CMy property rights are being impacted by my neighbour.\u201D If the Minister is trying to set up a framework, then make it clear. If indeed, as the clause says, \u201Cby establishing a framework for planning and regulating the use and development of land.\u201D\u2014for who? Is it for the person who owns the land now or the person who might own the land in the future? Is it for the individual or is it for society? Very, very vague. The people in this country who thought there was going to be an improvement to the RMA\u2014I\u2019m sorry, but they\u2019re sadly being misled.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000842\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is the paperwork for the Minister in the Government\u2019s new RMA reforms\u2014ridiculous. I\u2019m not a lawyer, thank God\u2014there are plenty of them here in the House\u2014but this is going to be a wonderful, wonderful circus and celebration. If the purpose of the bill is so \u201Cwoke\u201D and so vague and sets up a framework, imagine the opportunities for legal debate and disputes when this passes through.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000843\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cde5ce6e6cb29ae0dba247336303740f\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: You don\u2019t need to be a lawyer to think that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000844\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223f91af09b04384d8122dcfe0dd60d3c0\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR\u003C/span\u003E: You don\u2019t, indeed. Even someone like myself, who just wants to enjoy my land\u2014well, the way I\u2019ll enjoy the land is probably grazing, planting a few trees, but, as I say, I\u2019ve got plenty of mates who want to dig it up. Digging it up now\u2014will that enable the enjoyment of the land by future generations? Probably not. This is such a \u201Cwoke\u201D and weird purpose clause, I don\u2019t know what planet the Minister is on. If he genuinely thinks that this is going to provide more clarity for people who are lucky enough to own land and own property, he\u2019s dreaming.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000845\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe question to the Minister, once again, is: how can he ensure that enjoyment of the land will be enduring, or is it indeed his and the Government\u2019s objective that the enjoyment of the land is only for the people who own that land now, and not into the future?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022da8ab18897132e9b0ac1cad1a897bd84\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000846\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022da8ab18897132e9b0ac1cad1a897bd84\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:36)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the Labour list MP based in West Coast\u2014or maybe\u2019s Otago, or wherever it is these days\u2014for his weird, weird statements. First time I\u2019ve ever been called \u201Cwoke\u201D\u2014so there you go. First time I\u2019ve ever heard the word \u201Cenjoyment\u201D as \u201Cwoke\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000847\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI think this issue\u2019s been well canvassed. I\u2019ve said about three or four times now how we are approaching the purpose clause. The member complains about the length of the bill; he may be interested to know that from, I think it\u2019s page 517 onwards, they are consequential amendments to other legislation that will fall away once the bill passes and won\u2019t become part of the final Act, so if that makes him feel better, that\u2019s good\u2014although, based on that last rant, I suspect not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000848\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022106245616748ce7e89305ace0c992032\u0022\u003EHon Damien O\u0027Connor\u003C/span\u003E: What page? 500?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000849\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220b0c73d7df6768fbfc2d4518041a61f7\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Something like that. There\u2019s the back end of it\u2014it\u2019s all the consequentials; the member can look it up. I\u2019d also encourage him to look up the national policy direction, which he clearly is unaware of. In fact, it\u2019s really clear from his comments around not being a lawyer that he also doesn\u2019t understand how even the Resource Management Act (RMA) works. Anyway, I\u2019ve said enough around the purpose clause.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00228125b58c4b8a653f83895ac566d636ef\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000850\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228125b58c4b8a653f83895ac566d636ef\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (20:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Very briefly on this purpose clause and the Minister\u2019s comments\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000851\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220e96a0f6eaca52e0ead85bd33f0f493b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: And we will make it brief, because the Minister\u2019s actually answered purpose a few times.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000852\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222ed1ca37f1c7191e25b32a4b183c206f\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: I know, but he has not answered the question that I\u2019m about to ask, which is: he has referred to the court cases taken under the Resource Management Act (RMA), which have deciphered what the purpose of the RMA is; is he saying that there will be no such court cases about this purpose statement, particularly with regard to this novel term \u201Cenjoyment\u201D that we\u2019ve just heard a contribution about? I\u2019ll leave it there\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\u0022\u003EMembers stand to seek call\u003C/span\u003E]\u2014on that point. I want to now move on to a different clause.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000853\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221b6b6b7989386f5ebd3b700d5e0ad7a1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: All your colleagues were standing up!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000854\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fc1fbb91e4dd9f4640fcc466e890c451\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: I just really support her!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000855\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b19a7a2a34bbaf1ab2316e61f403af5e\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: I would like to move on to clause 8, which is the Treaty of Waitangi clause. What we have here is a big change from the RMA in terms of the RMA having a general Treaty clause, also at section 8, and this one does not. I have Amendment Paper 690, which is to add in, at clause 8, after the heading, \u201C(1) All persons exercising powers and performing functions and duties under this Act must give effect to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi.\u201D I would like the Minister to consider that, and he may also want to comment on an issue that I\u2019m going to raise in the subsequent clauses about how this legislation goes backwards for M\u0101ori compared with the Resource Management Act\u2014not compared with the Labour legislation that we did last term with the Greens, but how it compares with the RMA, and then that goes to the equivalence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EBut I\u2019ll leave the contribution there on: will he consider having a general Treaty clause as this legislation has had, and does he accept that the removal of both a general Treaty clause but also the equivalent of section 6E from the RMA, plus all his changes that he\u2019s about to make to Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe, plus there being no environmental limits\u2014but we\u2019ll get to that in the next bill\u2014means that it\u2019s very difficult to determine equivalence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022fcaf497434534db53913dd7a9a62df0d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000857\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fcaf497434534db53913dd7a9a62df0d\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:39)\u003C/span\u003E: Very, very briefly, whether or not there are court cases is not an issue for me. I suspect there\u2019ll be some, but I\u2019m not intending to make a forecast in relation to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000858\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022464dad62f0dd0993efa826ecfcd07691\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, but you commented on it in the other speech.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000859\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022818683de50d05651dc9334b283c9be36\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Oh well, not this time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000860\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to the Treaty of Waitangi, clause 8 has been very carefully drafted. It\u2019s a descriptive Treaty clause that lists the specific provisions that recognises the Crown\u2019s obligations under the Treaty in the Planning Bill. You may notice it is not a generic Treaty provision, \u00E0 la Treaty principles provisions. It\u2019s quite a specific descriptive Treaty clause and it lays out that to recognise the Crown\u2019s responsibilities in relation to the Treaty, there is a M\u0101ori interests goal, which we\u2019ll get to in Part 2. There is M\u0101ori participation in the development of national instruments, regional spatial plans, and land use plans\u2014that\u2019s important\u2014and identification and protection of sites of significance to M\u0101ori and waahi tapu water bodies, sites in or on the coastal marine area, and the development and protection of identified M\u0101ori land.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000861\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve gone through quite a careful process around this. It\u2019s my view\u2014and I accept that members will have a differing view\u2014as I said, in my role as Attorney-General about a month or so ago to the Law Association, that Parliament needs to be more deliberate and specific about what we mean by giving effect to the Treaty. What obligations and duties are we seeking to impose on decision makers and how do we expect the system to function. My view is that a reluctance to actually do the thinking about these issues has led us to a shortcut, which is just Treaty principles\u2014just \u201COh, give effect to the Treaty.\u201D or \u201CGive effect to Treaty principles.\u201D\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000862\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a842931546c6eaf7bdbc731cd3c6e823\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s not section 6(e)\u2014that\u2019s not Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000863\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224e689fe2bce68dd3c158fe95b0dd93a2\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, you asked about a Treaty clause, and I\u2019m just giving you my general contextual views.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000864\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe harder job is to do what we\u2019ve done, which is figure out exactly how the system should work for everyone, including M\u0101ori. Do I think the system should provide a vehicle for iwi to participate in regional spatial plans? Well, yes, I do. Do I think there should be a vehicle for the identification of ancient burial grounds or historic p\u0101 sites or sites of particular significance for whatever cultural reason to our tangata whenua? The answer is yes. The system we have designed will make that clear and provide for that to happen. So we\u2019ve gone through quite a careful delineation exercise around that. I appreciate that members opposite will have a different view, but I think we have done a pretty good job of clarifying all of that and laying that out in quite some detail, both through the bill, but, also, if the member picks up and reads the national policy direction planning system document, you will see a range of things that flesh that out in a bit further details. Then there are standards to come as well\u2014so national standards to come around some of that stuff as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u002227596b2811fb82c328b595ed695e148d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000865\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002227596b2811fb82c328b595ed695e148d\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (20:43)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. On the Treaty of Waitangi section that has just been referred to and the Minister responsible for RMA Reform\u2019s been speaking to: Minister, regarding the very specific point around national instruments and creation of those, the process for making a national instrument\u2014we\u2019re on page 37 of Amendment Paper 709\u2014in the earlier iteration of the bill, I\u2019m not sure when, I can tell from the reported-back bill from the Environment Committee, clause 8(b), the original wording said it would require the Minister to consult with iwi authorities on a draft or summary of a proposed national instrument. In this Amendment Paper, that has become \u201Cseek comment\u201D. It strikes us that that is the weakest and most meaningless requirement or imposition on the Minister. It\u2019s not \u201Cconsult\u201D, it\u2019s not \u201Ctake into account\u201D, it\u2019s far from \u201Cgive effect to Te Tiriti\u201D; it is simply \u201Cseek comment\u201D. Can you explain to us how such an insipid and weak imposition on the Minister as \u201Cseek comment\u201D can in any way give effect to a meaningful relationship between M\u0101ori and the Crown, let alone give effect to our founding agreement?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000866\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESecondly, in paragraph (c) of that same clause 8, in relation to spatial plans, also in the earlier iteration of the bill reported back to the House, remained an expectation that the spatial plan committee of the region prepare and change their regional spatial plan in accordance with any applicable iwi participation legislation, any agreement under that legislation, and any Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe. Obviously, in this Amendment Paper, Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe has been struck out. Can you additionally explain, Minister, how it is possible or beneficial for these long-term relationship arrangements between a regional council and a local iwi to strike them out and require them to be renegotiated? I understand from your commentary in the media on this that the argument is that we\u2019ve got a new planning regime and we need to start from scratch on those things. Surely there\u2019s a version of how the Minister accommodates the change in the planning regime that doesn\u2019t wipe out those arrangements and those agreements, which are yet another example of a Government that has consistently undermined and undone the health of that relationship between the Crown and M\u0101ori and between regional councils and M\u0101ori. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000867\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s like a snake slithering in the grass in terms of the ability of iwi to have some sense of constancy and certainty in the mechanism or the means by which they achieve fulfilment of their desires for self-determination or tino rangatiratanga if the Crown is being this slithering object, changing the rules, removing agreements that have been made and striking them out. Can he give us some indication of why you have taken that choice and what other options he considered in how to manage those existing agreements, which it seems\u2014and we have heard from councils\u2014no one was asking to be got rid of, except the Taxpayers\u2019 Union or the \u201CRace Baiters\u2019 Unions\u201D as I know them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00227b5992d89875e497869d9a5d2f26bd5e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000868\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227b5992d89875e497869d9a5d2f26bd5e\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (20:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Going back to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform\u2019s answer about clause 8, he said the harder job is to specify the details rather than to have a general clause. With that in mind, and also with section 6(e) of the Resource Management Act not being replicated here, and Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe going, how can he explain the equivalence clauses in clauses 9 and 10? How can there be equivalence is my question. Then, while I see the Minister\u2019s interested in this issue, can he also go through Part 1\u2014these clauses in the main part; there\u2019s not very many of them left, but a lot of them are new or there have been changes. So can he explain to us the policy changes that appear in front of us in the tracked-change version?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000869\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002272a975a644b63b6209a652035787180a\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: In relation to what?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000870\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ae6a3bea9d206269e41198c1d4138456\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: In relation to all of these clauses from 8 to the end of Part 1. You\u2019ve already discussed the fisheries one\u2014so 10(a).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022d11628b99ee9f530bacaee5d61f809d1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000871\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d11628b99ee9f530bacaee5d61f809d1\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:49)\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, right. Well, I can take a brief call. I mean, Steve Abel\u2019s speech was a long-winded lament for the Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe agreements. The reason we got rid of them is they\u2019re not scoped to the new system. The iwi participation agreements that are in this bill will be tightly focused on their role and some of the roles that I\u2019ve just talked about\u2014for example, identification of sites of significance, participation in national instruments, and things like that. The member can see that for himself. That\u2019s not to say that there aren\u2019t pre-existing relationships\u2014and, actually, there were only eight of them until the Government decided to change the planning system, at which point there was an explosion in interest, and maybe we should have seen that one coming. But we didn\u2019t, and so that\u2019s on me, I suppose.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000872\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe member Rachel Brooking made a point around clauses 9 and 10, and we\u2019ve spent quite a bit of time in relation to these provisions. The issue of equivalent effect of Treaty settlements is distinct from broader obligations to provide for M\u0101ori participation, as I think the member knows, and the member made a point around the deletion of section 6(e) of the Resource Management Act (RMA), and\u2014I mean, the point is that in clause 9, and then clause 10, it\u2019s there in black and white, which is that it is an arrangement which operates with the same or equivalent effect to the greatest extent possible under this bill and the Natural Environment Bill. That\u2019s an interpretation, and I accept that, but it\u2019s a clear indication of Parliament\u2019s intent for the Crown to uphold its end of the bargain when it comes to Treaty settlements.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000873\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew clause 10A on Amendment Paper 709 is Te Ture Whaimana, where we have agreed with the river iwi, with Te Ture Whaimana being the primary direction-setting document for the Waikato and Waip\u0101 rivers and activities within their catchments. That\u2019s part of the Treaty settlement and the Waikato River Act of 2008, I think it is\u2014or it might be 2010, sorry\u2014and the related arrangements there. We\u2019ve reached agreement with Tainui to port that specifically into the Planning Bill, with their agreement, and there\u2019s been some agreement over what the words are.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000874\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the Government\u2019s core objectives in designing this legislation was to not undermine settlements and to not breach the Crown\u2019s settlement obligations reached in good faith that have been legislated for over many years. Now, the member will appreciate that she and her Government of the day faced the same challenge because many of the settlements were signed under the Resource Management Act. There is a view\u2014it\u2019s not a view that I share, but there is a view\u2014that, because of that, the RMA must remain stuck in formaldehyde for ever and that because we signed it under the RMA\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000875\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002202ce9672869cf3db2caf8d8512fc10e8\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Who thinks that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000876\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a625574ff39b47881d50026ce274af88\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: There are people who say that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000877\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227aa51e0db96638832d675e306371743e\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: We don\u2019t.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000878\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f8cdd97e23abebda1877201b420fd4b9\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, that\u2019s good, but I\u2019m just saying that there are some people who say that. But that can\u2019t be true as a proposition of law, and it also can\u2019t be true as a general principle.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000879\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe next question after that is: well, how on earth do you change the underlying planning legislation but also give effect to settlements at the same time? The answer is clauses 9 and 10 and the subsequent provisions in the Planning Bill\u2014you know, I think it does the job. Other members may have a different view, but I think it\u2019s good, and there\u2019s still a long way to go on some of this stuff.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u002211dada83230a4537b29c3f9e02c882e5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000880\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002211dada83230a4537b29c3f9e02c882e5\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (20:53)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a little question on that, and then I just want to ask the Minister responsible for RMA Reform\u2014thank you for the explanation of where new clause 10A came from. He said there had been some negotiations with Tainui\u2014the settled iwi\u2014and that the words came from those negotiations. Given there are many other settlements, has the Minister been through those same conversations about other settlements, and can we expect that, before we end our committee stage on this bill, there will be more amendments to do what has been done for Tainui to the other settlement groups?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000881\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002271c78fec5ddcefe276be4e61cdb8fe14\u0022\u003ESimon Court\u003C/span\u003E: The river iwi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000882\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002269d8f681f408449bb224c3d3d1e5daa6\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: You\u2019re quite right: all of the river iwi. My apologies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022 data-id=\u0022308b063767b938432c2e78df96f9b5ac\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000883\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022308b063767b938432c2e78df96f9b5ac\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON (Green) (20:54)\u003C/span\u003E: Hello. Thank you\u2014awesome. We heard from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform about how some agreements should be locked in formaldehyde and upheld. I think, when M\u0101ori sign Treaty settlements, they think those are full and final and binding on all parties. But what we saw in submissions\u2014and we\u2019re referring to clause 10\u2014was that, largely, the majority of M\u0101ori opposed what was being sought in the clauses, because it diluted and practically weakened or undermined their settlements. I\u2019m trying to understand whereby there is a bit of iwi input, seeking their comment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000884\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe main concerns coming through from iwi submitters was that the post-settlement governance entities (PSGEs) had said in submissions that they sought to remove the wording \u201Cto the greatest extent possible\u201D in clause 10 and considered the implementation of the new system should not begin until agreements are reached with PSGEs on how their settlement redress would be given equivalent effect. In hearing that, we\u2019ve got an amendment that takes into consideration Tainui\u2019s interests in the settlement in relation to Te Ture Whaimana and Waikato River\u2014just noting that there\u2019s Tuwharetoa, there\u2019s Ng\u0101ti Raukawa, there\u2019s Te Arawa; all those other iwi. I\u2019m keen to understand how the Minister spoke with the other iwi of interest with Waikato River and Waip\u0101 River to get their agreement for that amendment\u2014so tautoko. I would love to hear that. If we\u2019re saying that we can reach agreements and come up with amendments, as my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking has already shared, for one particular piece of redress, at what point are the other PSGEs, who have reached settlement, who are active participants in the previous RMA iterations, now moving forward into the new system? How are they going to see an equivalent of effect being given to their settlements?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000885\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, local government, including Taituar\u0101, Hawke\u2019s Bay, Napier, Upper Hutt City Council, all expressed concerns about clause 10 giving inappropriate delegations to council: the responsibility then to determine what the \u201Csame or equivalent effect\u201D requirement is on the given settlement. They\u2019re an administration function of the system, and they argued that the understanding of how settlements are given effect to is between the Crown and iwi M\u0101ori; it\u2019s not for councils to relitigate what a settlement is and how it applies in their rohe. PSGEs had vast\u2014vast\u2014deep concerns about clause 10. They even raised the fact that there is a disproportionate burden on them to work to support the transition of their settlement redress into the new system, into this whole new framework. Is there going to be any resource to support that\u2014the building blocks of it? I raise that because I have a well-formed understanding of the issues around Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe. The legislation was provided, but the resource was not. Legislation was there, iwi groupings entered into the Mana Whakahono, but there wasn\u2019t a dollar to be seen to support iwi participation and capacity to give effect to the opportunity of what Mana Whakahono is. As we move into this new system, which apparently we\u2019ve got to go contort and we\u2019ve got to find a way to fit into the way that the system is going to speak to us or give us some type of consideration, is there going to be a dollar available in resourcing for iwi M\u0101ori in this space?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000886\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThese are some initial questions, because I would like to go in and understand further, around Te Ture Whaimana\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003E,\u003C/span\u003E how Ng\u0101ti Raukawa, how Te Arawa, how Ng\u0101ti Tuwharetoa were all consulted in the way that you\u2019ve reached your amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022d513534cbc6765ffca8bb49c82ecb440\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000887\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d513534cbc6765ffca8bb49c82ecb440\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:59)\u003C/span\u003E: I think it would be fair to say that upholding settlements has been a key policy decision underlying these reforms, especially part of the coalition agreements that formed the Government, so we\u2019ve worked really hard to try to land a position that upholds the settlements. The member can see that reflected in the bills. There have been discussions that have taken place with PSGEs across the country on how to do this. I wouldn\u2019t claim that I have done that personally always, but I have met with many. Staff from the former Ministry for the Environment, the now Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport, have done that and will continue to do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000888\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMs Brooking asked before around the river iwi, and I can tell her, for the committee\u2019s edification, there are also agreements that have been reached with Ng\u0101 hap\u016B o Ng\u0101ti Porou; the Whanganui River and Ng\u0101ti Rangi. They are included in the bills in a similar way to Te Ture Whaimana, and they are included in the consequentials rather than upfront in clause 10A. Clause 9 applies once the bill passes\u2014clause 9 applies to the Crown in relation to other settlement redress and other arrangements. I worked hard on it. I appreciate not all members will agree with it, but I think it\u2019s a good landing pad to move forward as a country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022 data-id=\u00222a58f29fc334c6db11ecc52bb4f6bcfa\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222a58f29fc334c6db11ecc52bb4f6bcfa\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B) (21:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Just a query about the definitions in clause 3. There\u2019s no definition anywhere in the bill that I can see or in Amendment Paper 709 that we received at 7.30 this evening of \u201Ccompetitive urban land markets\u201D. I just am curious, given this is a relatively new area of work, why that decision was made. There is a very good definition that I\u2019m sure the Minister responsible for RMA Reform will be familiar with. Competitive urban land markets means a market in which the supply of land responds to demand such that land prices at both the margin of urban expansion and of urban intensification do not persistently or materially exceed the total of the current market price of the land plus the costs to deploy that land in the higher-value use. Very good working definition, but it doesn\u2019t appear anywhere on the bill or the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper, and I\u2019m curious as to why.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00220264aa759e742156c47ef9b04244540c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000890\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220264aa759e742156c47ef9b04244540c\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (21:02)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for his contribution; shoutout to the competitive urban land market legends watching the committee, and the urban nerds who helped us craft this bipartisan consensus on the idea that competitive land markets are fundamental to productivity growth and prosperity, and I thank the member for his contribution towards that over many years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000891\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI have a great degree of sympathy for his position that the definition should be enshrined in primary legislation. We ran into some difficulty around it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000892\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b8e57ff00bc1530d7f8284903a547d29\u0022\u003EHon Phil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: Overridden by officials.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d26ffe54d4e251616c1d7fb5b65a0b2d\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, not because it\u2019s not impossible to define it, but syncing it up with the way in which it would work in the legislation presented some challenges. My personal view\u2014I can\u2019t believe I\u2019m saying this, given we haven\u2019t even passed these bills\u2014is it would be good to come back to, to have it enshrined in legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000894\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIt will be defined and given greater clarity through national policy direction and national standards, and I encourage the member to have a look at New Zealand\u2019s new planning system which provides an extensive array of directives to enable competitive land market spatial plans, abundant development opportunities\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003Edrops papers\u003C/span\u003E] excuse me, my apologies; it will teach me to bring down a stapled copy\u2014and I\u2019m sure we\u2019ll get into that later on, but I encourage the member to have a look at it. We had a good look at it, and it\u2019s difficult legally but I reckon we can get there in the end.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u0022e4a9f72a37296412b15c7b02001b9917\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000895\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e4a9f72a37296412b15c7b02001b9917\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (21:03)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I just had a quick question of clarification from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, particularly around Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe. Was he saying, you know\u2014because it was a shock to everyone, particularly those of us on the Environment Committee where we had been, in good faith, supporting and moving through the retention of Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe and then just suddenly, within hours, it being removed. Was the Minister saying just earlier that it was the sites of significance for M\u0101ori and the\u2014was he implying that there would be a barrier to moving those over into the new system as to the reason as to why they were getting rid of it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000896\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002288523a73ce2f95791da1bf388fa2ce67\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: No, the opposite.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000897\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229fbc4d054553fc2e26c29f9acc55a3aa\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM\u003C/span\u003E: It would be great if the Minister could clarify.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00227a8eae3ec771eaf923e91bfa26191505\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000898\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227a8eae3ec771eaf923e91bfa26191505\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (21:04)\u003C/span\u003E: No, the opposite. I\u2019ll say the opposite. I mean, I think those things are important and they should be part of the new planning system. In fact, they are part of the new planning system. The issue with the Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe agreement is\u2014I mean, I\u2019d encourage the member to actually go and read them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000899\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022681bd10a5c205b3f469c6e39e8e6f8b9\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000900\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ae0dde59ab2c410e3ca1db18a7b89dee\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, OK. Good on you. Most people haven\u2019t. They are extensively layered documents, creating endless obligations for everyone in the system\u2014all sorts of things that are just simply not part of the new system. People kind of neglected that, I think, when they were going and arranging them and debating them and having endless discussions around them. All of that stuff was going to fall out of the new system anyway because they were only ever going to be relevant to the extent that they were possible in the new system anyway. We just thought, \u201CLook better to make a clean break of it. Have these iwi participation agreements.\u201D It\u2019s not to say that those relationships aren\u2019t important. It\u2019s not to say that Sites and Areas of Significance to M\u0101ori aren\u2019t important. They are important. I think the member may have confused me or maybe it\u2019s late and maybe I confused her and others.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000901\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe opposite is the case of what she was saying. They are important and there should be an ability for the system to recognise those relationships\u2014the appropriate places, the iwi participation agreements\u2014in the new system because they\u2019re in the new system rather than the old. Look, I accept there\u2019s a bit of friction as we get through this because it\u2019s a bit like the plan stop process where you\u2019ve got one old system, you\u2019ve moving to a new system; there\u2019s stuff in the middle, there are a bunch of plan changes that are kind of in the middle, which, what do you do with them? We\u2019re sort of muddling our way through there. I\u2019ve allowed some to go ahead; I\u2019ve said no to some others. There\u2019s no perfect solution to any of this stuff.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000902\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ca343e460fa964688baf0971fcfc3035\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: You said no to the ones that are about water pollution.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000903\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ed19c17cc615300aa22cf576fa79d2b3\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000904\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ac66981bbeea1163e478b015c9e88598\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: You\u2019ve said no to the ones about water pollution.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000905\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223e5983bcfaf1419efa6fb0a38dbfdfed\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: No, that\u2019s not true\u2014no, that\u2019s not correct. It\u2019s all on the Ministry for the Environment or Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport website; that\u2019s not correct, but, I mean, I\u2019m not going to lie to the committee. They\u2019re difficult decisions. They\u2019re finely balanced judgement calls, but at some level, you have to say, \u201CWell, the old is ending and the new is beginning.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000906\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220236d5437c59825616f93b3ca290be0f\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: In 2030.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000907\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ba60b341ad80b1e7b4c24f2218303ff7\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, no. Firstly, some things come into effect immediately or nearly immediately. Then there\u2019s transitional national rules, then there\u2019s a national policy direction. The transition starts the moment the bills end; the transition is already under way. Without doing a \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EFitzgerald v Muldoon \u003C/span\u003Eon you, people are gearing up for the transition, and rightly so. The new digital system is under construction right now, and not really part of the legislation and probably not worth going into but it\u2019s really exciting\u2014really exciting\u2014what we can do with the new digital tools, federated data; big investment from the Crown into creating that new digital-first e-plan - enabled planning system. We\u2019re going to have\u2014to Mr Twyford\u2019s point before around competitive land markets\u2014much richer data around land efficiency indicators, around consents, around housing and business development capacity which we won\u2019t have to go out and argue with councils for for six months to get the data. We\u2019ll be able to see the data in real time. It\u2019s going to be exciting. It\u2019s a Government IT project, though, so, you know, we\u2019ve got\u2014it\u2019s quite a bit of work to do. I say that with full respect for the team working on it; it\u2019s going well so far. But we\u2019ve got to keep our eye on the ball.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000908\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAnyway, that\u2019s a roundabout way of saying\u2014I\u2019ve forgotten where I started, but I\u2019m done. I\u2019m done.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022cbed8ce5f9aa505057693c7b982915c8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000909\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cbed8ce5f9aa505057693c7b982915c8\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (21:08)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just going back to a discussion that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform and the Hon Phil Twyford were having about the absence of an amendment for competitive urban land markets or competitive land markets. Perhaps the Minister would like Phil Twyford to draft an Amendment Paper? Is that something that the Minister would be interested in because we could do it now, I\u2019m sure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022504da8f23bdc15cb64d27e7318ff6999\u0022\u003EHon Phil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000911\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eda61678377c72544a6bfae8bcf61fac\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Yes? Phil says yes. Just waiting for a nod from the Minister. Not happening.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000912\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m going to move now to Schedule 1 and so this is some many, many pages on and I have a range of questions on it. Again, I\u2019m going to ask the Minister\u2014and he\u2019s probably going to get sick of me asking this with various different parts of the bill\u2014where he\u2019s made changes since it\u2019s been reported back from the Environment Committee, I think it is very useful for him and efficient, even\u2014he likes to talk about efficiencies\u2014to explain if there are policy changes or if the changes are merely things are being moved around. That\u2019s totally understandable in a bill of this size.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000913\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo the first one there would be the identification of initial national standards\u2014if the Minister wants to comment on that, that would be useful. I can hold that thought and move on to clause 12\u2014there are a whole lot of 12s with big letters\u2014which is under the subheading  \u201CApplications for consents and notices of requirement during transition period\u201D. I have Amendment Paper 742, and that would insert a new clause 12G to say that Auckland\u2019s Plan Change 120 continues and must be determined under the Resource Management Act. I have another similar amendment which comes up in a different part, but perhaps the Minister would like to take the opportunity to talk about that Amendment Paper and that suggestion, and go on to the discussion that we just had about the difficulties of deciding what continues under the current system and what is not worth continuing under the new system which is going to come in in 2030. That would be an interesting discussion to have, or we can have it later when my other amendment comes up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000914\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen, of course, if we keep going through the schedule, there are some underlines on clause 14A, which is about arrangements for subdivision consents and reclamation consents, and at clause 14B about cross-leases. There are some other changes as we go through, particularly around certificates of compliance and existing-use certificates. I don\u2019t know if those are policy changes or not. Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe will come up in other parts as well, and I understand that that is a policy difference.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere is a new clause, clause 25AA, which is about the meaning of Resource Management Act terms and expressions in continued secondary legislation. That seems to be just a simple rollover clause that maybe we hadn\u2019t thought of before when looking at the legislation\u2014if the Minister can confirm that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000916\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen I do want to go to clause 36, and this is on page 274, and that is that the application of clause 4.1(2) of the national policy statement for highly productive land 2022 is disapplied, and if the Minister could explain why it is that it\u2019s going to be disapplied and what impact that will have on the protection of highly productive land, and, in fact, on New Zealand\u2019s food security, that would be useful too. I note again that there is a new clause 39, and underlined is emergency works under the Resource Management Act. I thought I had another thing here but those are my questions on Schedule 1, Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022185a6cc5e5f318faf50ee7ebb26ee540\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000917\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022185a6cc5e5f318faf50ee7ebb26ee540\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (21:13)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll deal with a few of those and come back on a couple maybe, if there\u2019s time. Clause 39 is a provision related to emergency works authorised by the Resource Management Act (RMA). There\u2019s no policy change there. Likewise, there is no policy change in relation to, I think it was, clause 25AA. Generally, the schedules do not contain significant policy changes. Plan Change 120: her Amendment Paper is unnecessary. I\u2019m advised that it carries on under the RMA\u2014a very important plan change to get right for Auckland\u2019s future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000918\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225c6d700fbb39f078e19a4e913ea41d10\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Indeed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000919\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224addfa84a8791cc771c7ac0b92f4751a\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Indeed. In relation to the highly productive land (HPL), which is clause 36 of the schedule, I will come back on that. The point is, I think, that currently there\u2019s a requirement for regional councils to map HPL until 31 December 2027, which is actually not that far away, and it\u2019s suspended until the specified transition date, and I\u2019ll come back to you about that one. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u00223157830d3f7ae5d30157797689cb5ea9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000920\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223157830d3f7ae5d30157797689cb5ea9\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (21:14)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a general question in relation to Schedule 1. I think that through Amendment Paper 709 he repeals the Resource Management Act (RMA), whereas his Planning Bill before that did not. So I\u2019m just asking him what the status of those instruments, which are creatures of the RMA, is for the purposes of the transitional provisions because they also reference the RMA.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000921\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to ask him specifically, first, about the fact that there are difficult decisions and some of these get dropped along the way\u2014about consents that exist within the system because they\u2019re given effect by the old law, and now in this period where we are transitioning the effect of those. So I want to ask him which transitional provisions saves the Auckland consents that he and I had discussed in a committee stage previous to this one where he said he would be sorting it out in this bill. There are developers in Auckland who had their consents, effectively, made inactive by legislative changes previous to this, so I assume that one of these changes saves those developers. They\u2019re small and there\u2019s not a large number of them but they are mum and dad developers for whom these decisions are big and valuable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000922\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also want to ask him about clause 21 on page 264 of Schedule 1. As I understand it, he said that iwi participation agreements in this legislation are only defined for the purposes of the legislation and that Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe agreements in this schedule, all of them that exist or are at the stage of almost existing, no longer have legal effect. But what I understood from his answer is that he would anticipate that those could be called contracts for services\u2014services provision agreements, memoranda of understanding (MOU)\u2014and that they would still be enforceable arrangements but not for the purposes of his bill. Is that right, Minister? Have you extinguished Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe agreements but do you anticipate that those agreements might have some other name that is not aMana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe agreement but is in fact an MOU, which is the old system, and they would deal with any number of things that a local authority is perfectly capable of entering into an arrangement about?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000923\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002250ef3e64eb990c40f831b09f67a09245\u0022\u003ESimon Court\u003C/span\u003E: He\u2019s answered this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000924\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022caa5618489e7489eefe2eec62e1c7c71\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS\u003C/span\u003E: No, he hasn\u2019t. I think that\u2019s what he said\u2014that they will continue to exist; they\u2019ll just have a different name.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223fd18738ebce65df575eceacb0f63bb4\u0022\u003ESimon Court\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000926\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c4da5ef2d471eab6cb95ff8b573cf4e2\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS\u003C/span\u003E: OK. Well, if they will, then, continue to have a different name, why have we gone to all the heat and light of saying that they will no longer continue to exercise public power in that way? This provision seems to cease to give them any legal effect, in which case that wouldn\u2019t be true. So it would also be helpful if he gave us an idea about why, then, there are provisions for transitioning these sorts of arrangements over to iwi participation agreements, which are meant to be the new in-scope creature of the legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022ea08f5a8e516ba15996e2b77a76a7fad\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000927\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ea08f5a8e516ba15996e2b77a76a7fad\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (21:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Clause 6, which one of the members asked about, is an empowering provision for initial national standards. It allows new system standards to apply under the Resource Management Act with constraints. Previously, there was a defined term, but this is an empowering provision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000928\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn relation to clause 36, which I said I\u2019d come back to, basically the intent of this is to stop councils wasting resources in the resource management system. A new system standard will replace clause 36 in the schedule in relation to highly productive land, and I have good news for the Hon Phil Twyford. I had neglected to point out, largely because I forgot, that competitive urban land markets are defined in the national policy direction that we have issued today\u2014which is defined as\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000929\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022443f23de4cbd464f91833e6c466c98c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022915f142c2c1d1cb86af0f458fcc50ce4\u0022\u003ETodd Stephenson\u003C/span\u003E: He\u2019s a happy man.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000930\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222ce5ca319a99fa6ebb8d3e53ccba74de\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: He is a happy man. It is defined as a market in which there is abundant supply of developable land suitable for different uses such that land prices do not materially and persistently reflect premiums caused by constraints on land use.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000931\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225a1b7139aa4e7eaf95f480f1936e877c\u0022\u003EHon Phil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: Close.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000932\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221d53938e1a54dd5d153d5947b62901af\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s close. We could have a debate about it, and you\u2019d probably win. We can have an argument about it\u2014it\u2019s an illustrative draft so I look forward to many discussions with likeminded folk over the exact, precise terminology of what a competitive land market is, but there is a working definition in the national policy direction. I\u2019m advised that that is the appropriate place to put the definition, because that puts the flesh on the bones, so to speak, of the bills. We could have a debate about that.  There might be a case for it in the legislation. Potentially, we could come back to that. So that\u2019s good news. That\u2019s made my night.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000933\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn relation to the existing-use rights certificates that, I think, Rachel Brooking asked about, that is all clarificatory and there are no substantive changes there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022 data-id=\u0022da9da95878f61a20d738b6a6a218c376\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000934\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022da9da95878f61a20d738b6a6a218c376\u0022\u003ESUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip\u2014National) (21:20)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000936\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000937\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000938\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000939\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000940\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000941\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e9716fde1bc66348c6ee350f48218558\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendments to clause 3 in Amendment Paper 709 set out on Amendment Paper 751 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000942\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000943\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000944\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000945\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000946\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000947\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments to the amendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000948\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bd4627a574461570c5d1ff17e09bb6af\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 3 in Amendment Paper 709 inserting a definition of \u201CMana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000949\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000950\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000951\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000952\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000953\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000954\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000955\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228434d1019038c00304bdaf4a1277a338\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 709 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000956\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000957\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000958\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000960\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000961\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000962\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022996fcd23d7bb78023b830cfd84cc2b83\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendment to the definition of \u201Cinfrastructure\u201D in clause 3 set out on Amendment Paper 695 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000963\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000964\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000965\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000966\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000967\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000968\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000969\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dba21d19a782c1ad8b98b14e7dc03e9a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Tamatha Paul\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 3 inserting new paragraph (c) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000970\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETamatha Paul\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 3 amending the definition of qualifying resident in defining M\u0101ori is out of order as being inconsistent with the previous decision of the committee of the whole House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000971\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 3 inserting a definition of well-functioning urban area be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000972\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000973\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000974\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000976\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000977\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000978\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f253a604734b55c52b9056a17e94136b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendment replacing clause 4 set out on Amendment Paper 693 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000979\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000980\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000981\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000982\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000983\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000985\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002214b6d2e7b2078be86acb7d8b81df1fe9\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Tamatha Paul\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 4 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000986\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000987\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000988\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000989\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000990\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000991\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000992\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022303cecf932c78f8824d3b0547e16d0d1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendment to clause 8 set out on Amendment Paper 690 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000993\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000994\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000995\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000996\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000997\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000998\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520000999\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f474518f4d9bb1792db8c14aa9736caa\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Tamatha Paul\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8 inserting (8f) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001000\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e96b9d103eb28301b57e8633e453edf5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s amendment to clauses 3 and 9 set out on Amendment Paper 733 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee of the whole House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s amendment to clause 10 set out on Amendment Paper 733 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Part 1 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 1 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00221928652c9d0d7a9c4b95fc94c117f0ac\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022085e83e78c1c6872688a6fe1b92873ac\u0022\u003EPart 2 Foundations\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002228544d2c0265691b79e8f79ed3f673e5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to Part 2, the debate on clauses 11 to 62A, \u201CFoundations\u201D. The question is that Part 2 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022ac533fe3d034a8d5a13daa1101757e98\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ac533fe3d034a8d5a13daa1101757e98\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (21:31)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. This is a very substantive part of the bill when it\u2019s called \u201CFoundations\u201D. I don\u2019t think it includes any schedules, but it does include a lot of important clauses. The first of these is clause 11, which is \u201CGoals\u201D. A lot of the architecture and framework of these pieces of legislation go to those goals. They don\u2019t have a hierarchy, they\u2019re going to be in conflict with each other, and they\u2019re very development-focused in this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs we work our way through this part, we can get to the issue of the resolution of conflicts that the Minister cites. But starting on goals, I have an Amendment Paper, 694, which would replace clause 11 with some of the same goals but also different goals. Some of these goals are talking about, in my new clause 11(1)(b), supporting and enabling economic growth \u201Calongside environmental protections, restoration, and enhancement of the natural environment:\u201D, and also (c): \u201Cto create well-functioning urban and rural areas that are responsive to the diverse and changing needs of people in their communities in a way that promotes\u2014(i) the use and development of land for a variety of activities, including for housing, business use, and primary production; and (ii) development capacity, in relation to housing and business land, being available well ahead of expected demand; and (iii) adaptable and resilient urban forms that provide access for people and their communities to and between social, economic, recreational, and cultural opportunities while protecting productive soils:\u201D. That is important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnother change would be at 11(1)(i), which is to provide for M\u0101ori interest, and to replace that with the equivalent of section 6(e) in the Resource Management Act, and to also include a climate change goal in paragraph (e) of my Amendment Paper, which states, \u201Cto assist New Zealand to meet the target set under section 5Q of the Climate Change Response Act 2002 through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the removal of greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere:\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think these would be great changes to the goals, in order to have a piece of legislation that does better for all of us. So I would be interested in the Minister\u2019s comments on that, and then I have another amendment in that Amendment Paper, which would be to insert a new clause 11(3), which is, basically, that if there is a conflict between the goals, then you go to the purpose of the Act. My version of the purpose of the Act that we discussed in the other part was a bit more fulsome than the Minister\u2019s in terms of the fact that it talked about integrated management. So I was wondering if the Minister would like to comment on my great recommendations for improvement to the \u201CGoals\u201D clause, to do better for all of us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00227f0d0bb88340dca93b8de98b3b67e0ac\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227f0d0bb88340dca93b8de98b3b67e0ac\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (21:35)\u003C/span\u003E: The short answer, without being disrespectful or rude, and I\u2019m sure the member\u2019s put a lot of effort into them, is that we also have, equally, put a lot of effort into the goals of the Planning Bill, which members can see at clause 11, and we\u2019ve literally thought very carefully about every single word and the provisions there. We think we\u2019ve got the balance right. The goals are at the heart of the new system, and we\u2019re not intending to make any changes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022 data-id=\u00222356cebf58d04217e5b79781dc8d0b20\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222356cebf58d04217e5b79781dc8d0b20\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green\u2014Rongotai) (21:35)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I have no doubt that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform won\u2019t be interested in my tabled amendments amending clause 11, but I do want to speak to them and ensure that they are sufficiently on the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E, because I think this really comes to the heart of the missed opportunity to create an enduring and bipartisan approach to planning and environmental protection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhile Government parties may have thought carefully about the wording in the goals, it\u2019s pretty clear that it is not wording that I think captures the broader interests of New Zealanders in our urban planning system, which is not simply to ensure that land use doesn\u2019t unreasonably affect others. So my first tabled amendments would change the first paragraph (a) of subclause 11(1), to state, \u201Cto ensure that land use supports sustainable, livable, and affordable human settlements while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m totally open to the purpose changes that the Hon Rachel Brooking put in the first part, and also the alternative wording to take into account climate change. But there\u2019s no question that fundamentally creating towns and cities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions is part of the solution to climate change. If we don\u2019t have that as a goal of this bill, then there\u2019s not going to be the ability to do that important planning that would reduce the emissions from people living their everyday lives.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA whole lot of the emissions that are making climate change worse and then flooding our communities or creating unbearable heat in the northern hemisphere during their summer\u2014our winter\u2014are affecting the ability for us to produce food affordably, and can be seen in the fact that our planning rules and planning approach basically maximised greenhouse gas emissions, because it makes it so that people have to drive around and use excessive amounts of fossil fuels to get from point A to point B, which, by the way, is a horrible waste of time, a drain on our productivity, and a huge cost to individuals. So here is a total missed opportunity to do something that would get better outcomes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFor paragraph (b), I, of course, as a Green MP, don\u2019t think economic growth for the sake of it is worthwhile. Economic growth, just GDP growth, could mean a whole lot more costs and a whole lot more misery for a lot of humans. What we do want is to support and enable quality of life, affordable housing in transport, and density and diversity of land use within urban areas. I think the Minister might agree with that last bit. So that is my alternative clause 11(1)(b), which makes it more about what the actual point of the economic growth is in the Minister\u2019s mind, which is actually improving the quality of life for people. That should be the goal, not economic growth for the sake of it, which could come at the expense of wellbeing for a whole lot of people, and indeed does, at the moment, in places like the United States.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn clause 11(1)(c), after \u201Crural areas\u201D, I suggest simply inserting \u201Cwithin environmental limits\u201D, because I think that is important that we recognise that well-functioning urban and rural areas do have to be within environmental limits, because everything we do as humans is reliant on a planet that has life on it, that has clean water, that has clean air, that has healthy soil, that\u2019s able to produce food, that has a stable climate. Clause 11(1)(d), after \u201Cbusiness use\u201D\u2014again, just adding something to the end of this: currently, it says \u201Cto enable competitive urban land markets by making land available to create abundant development opportunities for residential and business use\u201D. I insert, following \u201Cbusiness use\u201D, \u201Cwhile protecting the health and diversity of natural ecosystems.\u201D I just think that point has to be made so clear in 2026, in the second quarter of the 21\u003Csup\u003Est\u003C/sup\u003E\u003Csup\u003E\u00A0\u003C/sup\u003Ecentury, where we\u2019re seeing catastrophic loss of species and increasing severe weather events that are affecting the ability of people to live. We will not have a thriving future if we don\u2019t start living within environmental limits and looking after the health of ecosystems.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 11(1)(e): before \u201Cinfrastructure\u201D, I suggest inserting the word \u201Csustainable\u201D. I think sustainability has a pretty well understood meaning, in terms of both fiscal and environmental sustainability. We also had suggestions\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ETime expired\u003C/span\u003E] Mr Chair, if you don\u2019t mind, I\u2019d like to continue to finish summarising my amendments to clause\u00A011.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c0bb038b128f1be24a0513f2b0737c8d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Julie Anne Genter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002282c61cdb373dd0fbdcebdf09526ed562\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. There was quite a proposal from, I think it was, The Aotearoa Circle\u2014I think it was them. There was a group that did a big splash about natural infrastructure, or green infrastructure\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229e16225b770ea5bb10dd61d69f3e34f7\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: It was them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022971e49986859e80ccd3a4a5a37c03914\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER\u003C/span\u003E: It was The Aotearoa Circle\u2014sorry, it\u2019s kind of late. They were suggesting explicitly defining natural infrastructure and green infrastructure. There\u2019s just this huge opportunity to recognise natural ecosystems as part of our infrastructure, and they can do somethings better than we can. For example, kelp forests are possibly more effective than seawalls at preventing encroachment of rising seas and tides, and kelp forests have all these other fantastic benefits. For most of the 20th century, I\u2019d say\u2014maybe it goes back as far as the Industrial Revolution, but especially in the 20th\u00A0century\u2014civil engineering, for all its wonders, undervalued the impact of natural ecosystems and the possibility of working with ecosystems rather than working against them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAnyway, we could have \u201Cnatural infrastructure\u201D instead of \u201Csustainable infrastructure\u201D or \u201Cgreen infrastructure\u201D. It would be helpful, I think, to add that to the definitions or to recognise it explicitly in our planning laws. I was at the World Green Infrastructure Congress speaking two years ago in Auckland. It was a massive world conference where experts from all over the world came to our country and we\u2019re speaking about the role of green infrastructure in lowering costs and getting better outcomes for air quality, biodiversity, water management, and climate control in cities. That concept seems to be entirely missing from this. Admittedly, the Government could put it in the national direction\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222ac7256f09a417fa888930723b76ea84\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: It is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002226d678d5d0ed37a7b98e7cefcd4b0ba3\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER\u003C/span\u003E: I look forward to seeing it in national direction\u2014fantastic. I haven\u2019t had a chance to read it, because I\u2019ve been reading the amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve just got one more, Minister, which is on clause 11: after clause 11(1)(g), inserting a new paragraph (ga). This is, again, an alternative to what the Hon Rachel Brooking suggested, which was an explicit goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change. It seems a sensible thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022475d0542026ba89080c32551771dc693\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022475d0542026ba89080c32551771dc693\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (21:43)\u003C/span\u003E: Happy days for the Hon Julie Anne Genter. Infrastructure, which we just covered in Part 1, \u201C(a) means a physical structure, facility, or network\u201D\u2014blah, blah, blah\u2014\u201C(b) includes a natural feature that is modified in order to\u2014(i) perform a public function; \u2026 (c) includes a physical facility \u2026\u201D. I think the member\u2019s points around natural features and green infrastructure and ecosystems are included within the definitions of what she is talking about. So I agree with you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224fa34ae18cc447fdc4e2a6806c2e0976\u0022\u003EHon Julie Anne Genter\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s not in the goals.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b7dd7dcfc6bfc9003ea689b7476137cd\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s not in the goals, because it doesn\u2019t need to be, because the word \u201Cinfrastructure\u201D is in clause 11(1)(3): \u201Cto enable infrastructure \u2026\u201D. Then you look at what infrastructure means and you look at the definition. This is basic statutory construction. Infrastructure includes the things I\u2019ve just talked about. There is no need\u2014in fact, arguably, it is more confusing\u2014to add prefatory phrases in front of key terms, because then the lawyers will say, \u201CWell, but infrastructure is already defined in clause 3 and you\u2019ve added something else to it, so now we\u2019re in a confusion.\u201D We don\u2019t need to do that. That would actually be bad drafting. It\u2019s included. Every word matters. To quote the great matua of the House, Mr Peters, \u201Cwords matter\u201D, and that is true.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ae125979731410c9c337a78d325cebe2\u0022\u003ETom Rutherford\u003C/span\u003E: The great rangatira.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022da8b84ca401e1b14616b01933cb97ed2\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: The great rangatira; that\u2019s right. I agree with you about green infrastructure: it\u2019s important, it\u2019s useful, it\u2019s necessary. I don\u2019t think adding the word \u201Csustainable\u201D adds anything to it, frankly. Likewise, the same critique can be made of the idea of adding the phrase \u201Cwithin environmental limits\u201D into the goals. We actually thought about that; some members made a good point. There is a whole separate regime in the Natural Environment Bill in particular around limits. Given you\u2019ve got that environmental limits regime in the bill, you don\u2019t need to repeat it in the goals.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EClause 11(1)(d): I\u2019ve dealt with the point around ecosystems. Climate change: just to lay on the table the Government\u2019s position, we have a whole separate regime to deal with the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002299fad259f43a844fd8de355e85306c21\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: How\u2019s it going?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226305979f3706d39fdfd929ffbaccbb39\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: I can hear the cries already: \u201CThe emissions trading scheme is ineffective.\u201D, \u201CIt\u2019s not perfect.\u201D\u2014blah, blah, blah.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229e737938227acfcae8b812a275e0c913\u0022\u003EHon Julie Anne Genter\u003C/span\u003E: But it\u2019s after the planning happens, so it\u2019s not an effective price signal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c616b9c463b1ceb6dbabed69c12380c1\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: The Government\u2019s view is that the appropriate place to deal with the negative effects of greenhouse gas emissions is not the environmental system or the planning system; it is the Climate Change Response Act. The positive effects of things like renewable infrastructure, renewable energy infrastructure, for example, are included in the system, but the negative effects of greenhouse gas emissions are not. I accept that members have a different view around that; it is a legitimate debate about public policy around that. The Government\u2019s position is the one that I have laid out. Natural hazards is important as well, which includes things like floods, erosion, and other areas. The effects of that should be dealt with through the planning system, but climate change emissions reduction is not included in this system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022649b1d0af45d670f968660918156a098\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022649b1d0af45d670f968660918156a098\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (21:46)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. One further Amendment Paper that I had on the goals: if in the unfortunate event that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform doesn\u2019t agree with my Amendment Paper\u00A0694, how about including, at clause 11(1)(d), after \u201Ccompetitive\u201D, \u201Cand efficient urban land markets\u201D? There\u2019s just a little Amendment Paper there, No. 743, that the Minister might want to consider. Then I\u2019ll move on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 12 is the relationship between key instruments in decision making. At subclause (2), it says \u201CEach key instrument (other than the national policy direction)\u2014(a) must implement the instrument listed directly above it; and (b) must implement an instrument higher up the list if required by that instrument.\u201D It\u2019s just a very small question here to the Minister: does he read that as, essentially, codifying \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EKing Salmon\u003C/span\u003E? Is that why we\u2019re putting in clause 12 there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve also got a very different amendment from the ones I was talking about before. This is Amendment Paper 707, and it\u2019s an inclusion at subclause (3). We\u2019re still on clause 12, which is \u201CRelationship between key instruments in decision-making\u201D. At subclause (3), it says, \u201CA person exercising or performing a function, duty, or power under this Act in relation to a matter\u201D must consider various things. I\u2019ve got an insertion there, which is a paragraph (d), \u201Cmust consider the polluter pays principle.\u201D I think this would be an excellent thing to give some comfort that the Government isn\u2019t, in fact, doing what I suspect they\u2019re doing and just opening up our whole economy for polluters to pollute some more and for the public to pick up the price tag.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u002235aa253980d3ce8bc4db446e60beffb6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002235aa253980d3ce8bc4db446e60beffb6\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (21:49)\u003C/span\u003E: Nice try! No, we won\u2019t be agreeing to that. It depends what you mean by \u201Cpolluter pays\u201D, of course, which would be the great challenge there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d4f4b6865a9cef5edccdc4d13f4537f7\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: We could define it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022545fbd07162ea5fe1d94512395f7c3c6\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, well, I look forward to that! In relation to the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s substantive question around \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EKing Salmon\u003C/span\u003E\u2014there\u2019s a lot in \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EKing Salmon\u003C/span\u003E, but in relation to the point she was making\u2014I\u2019m going to give a tentative yes to that intention. Codification, I think, is probably not correct. New Zealand law doesn\u2019t really codify things. We have laws or we don\u2019t, but it certainly lays out a statutory schema of, as I understand it\u2014she\u2019d know more about it than I would\u2014the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EKing Salmon\u003C/span\u003E decision from 2006, I think.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227667c321468bea0f681578f8e590119f\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: A long time ago.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226308b457e8bdc6a70e0de6807ebf35a3\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: A long time ago, back when you were a young whippersnapper lawyer in Dunedin and I was not an MP.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u00220c31e11541293d47df00cd2753a9c139\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220c31e11541293d47df00cd2753a9c139\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (21:50)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. A quick question for the Minister about the \u201CGoals\u201D section, clause 11 in Subpart 1, read in light of the Treaty principles. The question is, should this provision be read in light of what the Resource Management Act (RMA) was before? Is this taking that away, and the courts are meant to interpret the removal of an express provision for giving effect to kaitiakitanga that you can\u2019t sort of read in to providing for M\u0101ori interests?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Minister will know that, so far, the duties and the powers he\u2019s removed from the goals section where he\u2019s striking through \u201Call persons exercising or performing functions or powers under this Act\u201D\u2014previously, that probably would have brought in any sort of, say, consultation or the ability for local authorities to include iwi or M\u0101ori representatives within their decision-making processes that weren\u2019t given effect to just buy planning instruments. But now we\u2019re limited to just those documents, and though there\u2019s a goal to provide for certain M\u0101ori interests within those, they\u2019re not the full suite of what the courts have interpreted over the years as being the rights and duties that iwi M\u0101ori have to participate in local government decision making.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m not asking for a return to the recognition of kaitiakitanga here\u2014I know why he\u2019s gotten rid of that\u2014but there are things here which seem to be missed out, and things which many in this House would see is reasonable to include iwi M\u0101ori in. Those are things like the protection of the p\u014Dhutakawa trees at Judges Bay, which were an issue of significance in Auckland\u2019s local politics for some years when the Erebus memorial was being proposed in the Parnell Rose Gardens, for instance, that is not within the definitions of something like a \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Ew\u0101hi tapu\u003C/span\u003E\u2014those were the trees themselves. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question here is around, well, do the principles still apply? Does the series of cases, starting with the lands case, being developed by the Huakina case, then Wellington Airport\u2019s consultation case, which set out over a long period of time that the RMA wasn\u2019t the basis for those consultation rights, but Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles were\u2014are they meant to be updated by what he\u2019s doing here, or do they exist in tandem and it\u2019s for the courts to decide whether those consultation rights still exist? And when are you meant to then apply the goals if they only apply to those instruments, but there are other powers, like the duty to act honourably, the duty to act in good faith, the duty of active protection, and the duty to consult?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022d9ac7077d0e2e95020a2fea8508d04fa\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d9ac7077d0e2e95020a2fea8508d04fa\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (21:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, there\u2019s quite a lot in that\u2014a real tour de force through the last 30 years of Treaty jurisprudence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022422bf13ad5b28a7b4a2d9296ce2ef1bd\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Very brief\u2014very brief.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ac77d0b9079be4e10675891a27a3b546\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Very quick. Also, I\u2019m advised that the King Salmon case was 2014, so I don\u2019t know where 2006 came from.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226dbb917b81261b19c25910a09f2998da\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, OK. I wasn\u2019t young\u2014I wasn\u2019t young.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d4233a82cce962acd3e96f1dcb896478\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: You were a little bit younger. Anyway, I got that wrong, too, so no doubt Gary Taylor is going to send me an angry text message about my lack of knowledge.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo quite a quick tour, without presupposing where councils may get to\u2014I mean, the member will be more familiar with Judges Bay than I am. The sites of significance to M\u0101ori is not\u2014subparagraph (i)(ii) in clause 11, \u201Cincluding w\u0101hi tapu, water bodies, or sites in or on the coastal marine area\u201D; that\u2019s just a kind of gloss on that. It\u2019s not limiting to that, so it doesn\u2019t have to be w\u0101hi tapu. There will potentially be national direction in relation to how those are defined\u2014look, I think there needs to be an evidential threshold. It can\u2019t just be a self-defined, you know, \u201CWhatever you want.\u201D So there may well be national directional standards around evidential thresholds and things like that. The member will know more about Judges Bay and other areas in Auckland, in particular, where there\u2019s obviously a range of sites, including here in Wellington, as well. I\u2019m not going to get too far into that. That will be provided for through planning.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI just want to repeat what I said before, which is that the intention of what the Government is trying to do here is lay out, to some exhaustive detail, a statutory scheme that, as much as possible, addresses what the role of M\u0101ori interests in the system are. You can see that through participation in national instruments, spatial plans, land-use plans\u2014there\u2019s a range of other things throughout the Act. I\u2019m not going to make a comment on some of the other things the member mentioned in her remarks, but I think we\u2019ve done a good job at providing for laying out what those interests are and how they\u2019ll be given effect to. And then, of course, national direction will do a lot of the fleshing out of that through the national policy direction and then the standards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221f982254ea38bdb0752398e13b0075fc\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The house will resume at 9.00 a.m. tomorrow. Everyone have a good night.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterItalicsCentred\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 9.55 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a2dd8281d58b0e2bc381e8c2e0cafea5\u0022\u003EUrgency\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022cb7e875346473cb98034644325ef50b4\u0022\u003EWednesday, 26 August 2026\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002261f57391baeeb8e94d885482ac4f36c1\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00221a70e0a8bc1f9fc8bb38b47d1020ae16\u0022\u003EPlanning Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b6566186800f377618a368c9c319cd2a\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001079\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u00223ed3fed79fdd425fac10b199f934f1a6\u0022\u003EPart 2 Foundations (continued)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b06d5c771be7445ebcb0a8fc297277e0\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Good morning, everybody. It\u2019s 9 o\u2019clock, so the chair is resumed. I\u2019ll just make a quick comment for those of you that haven\u2019t been and had a look at Movember; please make the effort to go and have a look this morning. They\u2019re in the Banquet Hall.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWhen we suspended last night, we were considering the Planning Bill. I remind members that the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill are heavily interrelated, and that there are matters that are relevant to both bills. This will be taken into account when assessing relevancy in debate. Last night, we were debating Part 2, the debate on clauses 11 to 62A, \u201CFoundations\u201D. The question again is that Part 2 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022d5e4d8f87dd8eee6b67cc0f5b6336037\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d5e4d8f87dd8eee6b67cc0f5b6336037\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (09:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just for those viewers at home, to try and replicate what the Hon Scott Simpson used to do when I was in the same seat that Simon Court is in, he\u2019d remind the viewers of the excitement of where we were with the Resource Management Act (RMA) replacement legislation. Three and a bit years on, here I am, reminding those viewers that we have just started Part 2. I have put forward my great amendments to the goals. There was not very much interest from the Minister. I\u2019ve asked about the hierarchy of the instruments; I\u2019ve asked about the \u201Cpolluter pays\u201D principles; so now I\u2019m coming to\u2014other people might be going somewhere else\u2014clause 13, and that is \u201CProcedural Principles\u201D. Before I get there, I have been asking the Minister who was in the chair last night about the track changes in this Amendment Paper, and whether or not the member in the chair can tell us if it\u2019s just a movement or if it\u2019s a policy change. That\u2019s the question about clause 12(1)(a)\u2014if he can comment on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f45709d1c3f5b457cc1c71e3fe1ce11c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: A movement or a policy change\u2014was that the question?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002249b855c9e6adda93acad33830871177b\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. Sorry, what I mean by that, Madam Chair, is often in these quite complicated pieces of legislation, bits will move to other bits of the bill, and then they\u2019ll be tracked as a change, but in fact, they might just be a drafting niceness, not a policy issue. Or, of course, it could be a brand-new big policy issue that we might not spot, given that we haven\u2019t had these changes for very long. That\u2019s all\u2014and that they are new from select committee. That\u2019s what I was asking the Minister last night: if he can just take us through the track changes as shown on his Amendment Paper 709, and tell us what they mean. It\u2019s fine to say it\u2019s just a movement; it\u2019s not a policy change\u2014not that I set the rules, but if someone was asking them, that would be a fine answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ENow, \u201CProcedural Principles\u201D: this is at clause 13. I have an Amendment Paper, 701, which is to delete clause 13(1)(e), which is to \u201Cact in a pragmatic way that supports practical solutions:\u201D. I\u2019m particularly interested in this use of \u201Cpragmatic way\u201D in a piece of legislation. It\u2019s not a term that I\u2019m familiar with\u2014you have terms like \u201Creasonable\u201D and \u201Csignificant\u201D, and those types of words, but not \u201Cpragmatic\u201D. I was wondering if the member in the chair would accept my Amendment Paper to delete that, and, if not, if he can tell us why it is that such a novel term won\u2019t add to the chaos of this new system and all of the litigation that will surround it. I\u2019ll get to some of that chaos and ministerial decision-making shortly, but that is my question on clause 13. I\u2019ll leave it there before I get on to clause 14.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022dd06c62164d93ddb4227b77403276abc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dd06c62164d93ddb4227b77403276abc\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:04)\u003C/span\u003E: In response to the member\u2019s question around changes to clause 12(1)(a), that is a ministerial decision. To clarify, the decisions on consents and permits must be made in accordance with the funnel concept in this legislation. They must first consider the provisions of the relevant land-use and environmental plan, and then any national rule contained in national standards. That is policy intent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ETo the second question the member asked about procedural principle, \u201Cto act in a pragmatic way that supports practical solutions\u201D. For far too long under the Resource Management Act, we\u2019ve seen planners and decision makers impose impractical conditions, whether through plan rules or consent conditions, on people seeking to use their land for their own purpose. We\u2019re very clear in this legislation: \u201Cpragmatic\u201D indicates that we expect decision makers to make trade-offs and to see the trade-offs, to see the benefits in development applications and proposals to use land, and where there are effects to be managed, to come up with practical solutions and to accept an applicant\u2019s or proposer\u2019s solutions to manage those effects. This is a significant culture shift between the planning system we have now and the planning system that we aspire to and intend to have.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u0022bc6e004c1bdd889279d031a665641bb4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bc6e004c1bdd889279d031a665641bb4\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (09:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m just wishing to acknowledge the passing of Dolly Parton, who I think was meaningful to all of us. \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EMoe mai r\u0101.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn Part 2, there is reference to infrastructure and natural features as part of the goals. Last night, the Minister was quite vociferous in articulating the definitions of what those things are. It is very clear from the first part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart of the essential character of urban areas is the urban ngahere\u2014trees\u2014and the most valuable urban areas are known as leafy suburbs, because they are generally characterised by having a large number of mature trees. My first question is: which of these definitions captures urban trees? Are they infrastructure, under the definition that\u2019s outlined in Part 1, which the Minister referred to\u2014\u201Cinfrastructure \u2026 (b) includes a natural feature that is modified in order to (i) perform a public function; or (ii) support a matter described in any of paragraph (a)(ii)(A) to (D).\u201D Now, not all trees in urban areas are modified. For example, in the west part of Auckland where I live, most of the vegetation there is regenerating native bush. Is that captured by being modified infrastructure?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt includes also remnant forest, which is sometimes centuries old. Is that defined as infrastructure? Further on in that section of \u201CGoals\u201D in Part 2, clause 11(1)(g), states, \u201Cto protect from inappropriate development the identified values and characteristics of\u2014(i) areas of high natural character within the coastal environment, wetlands, and lakes and rivers and their margins:\u201D, which wouldn\u2019t include urban trees, reading that as it\u2019s written. Secondly, the goal is to protect \u201C(ii): \u201Coutstanding natural features and landscapes:\u201D, and I don\u2019t think it\u2019s clear that that includes urban trees. So where in these goals are urban trees captured?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen instituting and implementing the law, how was a planner, a council, or whomever\u2014a developer\u2014able to understand, in their interaction with an urban tree, where it fits in this definition? That\u2019s my first question, and I\u2019ve got further on the subject once I get clarity on that from the Minister, please.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022c0012883e94306094ae92f446af229f6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c0012883e94306094ae92f446af229f6\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:09)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for his question. As somebody who\u2019s lived in West Auckland, in the Wait\u0101keres, for decades, of course we appreciate the value of trees. In answer to his question\u2014what are trees? \u2014well, trees can be part of an infrastructure solution; the legislation provides for that. When we\u2019re considering developing cities or responding to intensification, providing infrastructure solutions so that we can build up and out, trees will surely form part of an infrastructure solution\u2014whether that\u2019s in open spaces, for community facilities, or whether that\u2019s part of constructed wetlands, places where we can provide for managing stormwater in the urban environment. That is surely part of a well-functioning urban area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u0022bdda723b1c67bf7f71503faedaefbd22\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bdda723b1c67bf7f71503faedaefbd22\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (09:10)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. So to that point, Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform, I believe you were answering in terms of development of new infrastructure. I accept that point, yes, and I agree that the trees are an important part of that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat I would like to clarify is where is the existing urban ngahere, the thousands and thousands of trees that existed across the urban environment? How are they captured in this legislation and recognised as having any value? Because it\u2019s not clear to me which category they fall into, and I feel that the Minister has given clarity that there is an infrastructural component to a developmental approach that would see the planting of new trees or wetlands or water management infrastructure, which we\u2019re supportive of; but it\u2019s not clear whether he regards the existing urban ngahere, which, if you fly across any of our cities, is a striking and appreciated and hugely valuable feature of what makes those cities liveable. It\u2019s not clear whether that is captured by \u201Coutstanding natural features\u201D, which seems to set a very high bar and wouldn\u2019t appear to capture the value of a mature tree standing on public land or parkland or private land. I would just like further clarification. Where does the Minister see existing urban trees being captured in the definitions in the goals?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo that point, there\u2019s a follow-up question. Currently, we have a scheduling system for trees that are seen as having exceptional value, whether it\u2019s ecological value, botanical value, amenity value, or heritage value, and they have a special protection status. There are around 6,000 scheduled trees in T\u0101maki-makau-rau Auckland alone. There are similarly large numbers in other cities, and these are the sorts of magnificent trees that you might see in Hagley Park, or you might see in the Domain, or you might see growing alongside a road, you know, a 300-year-old p\u014Dhutukawa tree, or one of the earliest oak trees planted when the British first arrived. They\u2019re recognised for their exceptional heritage, amenity, and ecological value. Those are scheduled trees. What is becoming of the tree schedules across our cities through this legislation? Is there any maintenance of their protection, or is it a blank slate now and each of those trees needs to be individually planned for under this new regime?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022dd7452c151edb3cf74227908494e8c47\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dd7452c151edb3cf74227908494e8c47\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:13)\u003C/span\u003E: Just to refer the member to definitions, that was in the interpretation section that we had debated yesterday. It\u2019s in Part 1. With respect to where the trees are in the legislation: well, trees are provided for in terms of open areas on public land and private land. They form part of a well-functioning urban area, which is where the member\u2019s questions are targeted. Of course, we don\u2019t need to specify every single aspect of the urban environment in order for people to understand the concept. Where are trees provided for, the member asked, and what about the heritage trees, those wonderful trees planted by the English, those great oaks, say, in Christchurch, and many others? Some people even regard a Norfolk pine, imported here from Norfolk Island, as a tree that is worthy of some type of protection. In the new system, heritage trees\u2014trees that have that heritage value that the member spoke of so fondly, and which I share\u2014will be provided for in the new system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022a9929fb41dcaced625f6c6eb8ec55f3c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a9929fb41dcaced625f6c6eb8ec55f3c\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (09:14)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. In going back to my questions before, thank you to the member for answering about clause 12(1)(a), that\u2019s helpful. If he could just touch on this. He said that it\u2019s incorporating the funnel approach. Is it relevant to the Minister\u2019s decisions? That\u2019s just one question there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen, going back to clause 13, \u201CProcedural principles\u201D, the member talked about how great it was going to be to be practical. I would remind the member that I did ask about court cases, and with his new terminology. When we already have, in the procedural policies, \u201Cuse timely, efficient, consistent, and cost-effective processes:\u201D\u2014that is there already\u2014and at paragraph (c): \u201Cact proportionately to the scale and significance of the matter to which the function, duty, or power relates:\u201D. Those are already there, as well as at paragraph (d), \u201Censure they have sufficient and necessary information\u2026after considering\u2014(i) the cost and feasibility of obtaining the information; and (ii) the scale and significance of the matter to which the decision relates:\u201D. My question, again, which hasn\u2019t been answered, is why keep including these new words that are unnecessary, from what the member\u2019s answer was, when that will lead to more upset in the system? That\u2019s my question on clause 13.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMoving now to clause 14, which is a very important clause, and it\u2019s particularly important because, in effect, most of it will be in effect\u2014a lot of the use of the word \u201Ceffect\u201D, isn\u2019t it\u2014in just one month\u2019s time after this bill commences, and we\u2019ll get to commencement provisions later. But it is very important that people understand effects outside the scope of this Act, because it\u2019s happening now and councils need to understand what they can and cannot consider. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI have a couple of amendments on clause 14. One is a published amendment at Amendment Paper 697, and that is to replace, \u201C(a) both\u2014(i) the internal layout of the building: (ii) the external layout of any building on the site of the effects of the layout remain within the boundaries of the site:\u201D, by deleting that (ii), and then also to specify that at\u2014sorry, these are all very long, aren\u2019t they. My Amendment Paper is 697, and is a change at clause 14(1)(h) so that we replace where it says \u201Cthe effect on landscape if the landscape is\u2014(ii) not outstanding; or not an area of high natural character:\u201D with \u201C(ii) not an area of high natural character;\u201D\u2014so that repeats\u2014\u201Cor (iii) not regionally significant for the purpose of the regional spatial planning only:\u201D. That\u2019s a restriction of what landscape is out of scope.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen, to add subclause (2A), which would be a new subclause (2A). Subclause (2) of this clause says, \u201CThis section does not restrict the consideration or management of\u2014(a) areas of high natural character\u2026\u201D etc.; so to add to that list \u201Cgreen space and urban trees.\u201D, which might deal with some of the comments that the member Steve Abel was talking about. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also have a tabled Amendment Paper, and that was tabled at 7.36.06, and this is after clause 14(2)(e)\u2014again, these things that can be considered well-functioning urban environments\u2014to add in \u201Cwell-functioning urban environments\u201D, so that can be a consideration of effects. And then I did have, in the last part, the definition of \u201Cwell-functioning urban environments\u201D, which would again go to the issues that Mr Abel was concerned about. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m asking, really, for some comment about the importance of those effects outside the scope of this Act, and whether they can be reduced so that, rather than \u201Cthe effect of the landscape if the landscape is not outstanding\u201D, that it\u2019s \u201Cnot regionally significant\u201D, and that we get rid of that \u201Cexternal layout of any building on a site of the effects of the layout remain within the boundaries of the site\u201D and then add in\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002258a2b1f1e4e7597d3a50783f1cdbe7e4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Hon Rachel Brooking.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221a0156451daf09b12b31ca2fc92291da\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014thank you\u2014these extra two regarding the well-functioning urban environment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThose are the questions around clause 14; reminding the Minister that I did have that question around clause 12A and 13 as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022d4f799957eb5ca6e0365c84215bc821a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d4f799957eb5ca6e0365c84215bc821a\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:20)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. In terms of the member\u2019s question about 12A, I have answered that: there was a policy decision taken by the Minister responsible for RMA Reform.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227167eb25691296e09188080aad3b1994\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: But does it apply to the Minister? That was just the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022522470d42eb9643de7c11c9b36d0f66c\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: It doesn\u2019t apply to the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022adc6fdf2107686da214e45680e309bd1\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Does it? Does not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ba14d22d2e5e3c3909feefe0ea858eb4\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: It does not. In terms of other jurisdictions, it \u201Cdoes not apply to a court or person exercising a judicial power or performing a judicial function or duty.\u201D That\u2019s clause 13(4). I don\u2019t mean to conflate the two things, but in terms of the member\u2019s other questions: will there be court cases? Well, the intention is that the legislation is clear, but no doubt some will seek clarity. That\u2019s not for me to predict, but no doubt, but let\u2019s be clear about what we\u2019re trying to do here with the procedural principles: we\u2019re trying to change a deeply embedded and entrenched culture of \u201Cno\u201D under the resource management system to a culture of permission and recognising that most of the solutions for managing effects are already well understood, which is why we\u2019re shifting from litigating and relitigating at every consent matter, which if we followed the right process, we would say, \u2018We\u2019ve done this before. Isn\u2019t there a way we can cut and paste?\u201D That\u2019s why we\u2019re shifting to specific standards to manage effects, and the procedural principles are helpful to shift from where we are now to a more standardised approach of managing effects.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ELet\u2019s be clear: we need to raise our expectations about the performance of the planning system and those who operate in the planning system, and that is why we\u2019ve been very clear that our expectations are that those \u201Cperforming a function, [power or] duty \u2026 must take all practical steps to act in accordance with the following principles:\u201D which includes acts \u201Cin a pragmatic way that supports practical solutions.\u201D Most New Zealanders sitting at home or watching\u2014and good morning New Zealand from the House of Parliament\u2014would understand what being pragmatic means. It means making trade-offs and what is a practical solution; something that works and doesn\u2019t cost the earth.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022 data-id=\u0022136b9a78de5d939c8912a9f55b2d5cf5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022136b9a78de5d939c8912a9f55b2d5cf5\u0022\u003EVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (09:23)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you Madam Chair. Like my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking, I have a question about clause 14, which is of course the clause that, essentially, deals with mandatory considerations that the duty holder must not consider, which is an interesting way of framing it. My question relates to how this clause interacts with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) and specifically clause 14(1)(f); this is that the \u201Ctype of residents to be housed in a new development:\u201D is not a consideration.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe context of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is that we have non-discrimination provisions that are attached to the Human Rights Act, and within those provisions there is the obligation to ensure that there isn\u2019t discrimination against disabled people. The Minister, just then, referenced most people in New Zealand will expect\u2014well, one in four New Zealanders have a disability. According to our international obligations, we have an obligation of what\u2019s called reasonable accommodation. This has been brought into domestic law through our case law and by signalling those lamp posts in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Human Rights Act, there\u2019s a case of \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ESmith v Air New Zealand\u003C/span\u003E that says the Government has a duty of reasonable accommodation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question to the Minister is whether this bars the councils from making directions about accommodation in that sense for our disabled population, or even in a broader way in terms of social and economic need, whether it would bar a council from setting guidance around the affordability of public housing, as well as the accessibility of public housing. We\u2019ve got, now, this piece of legislation that when read on its own appears to give a clear direction. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act itself says that where possible, Governments must aim to try and read in those rights, in as far as is reasonably possible, so the two must engage; they have to, by virtue of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy question is whether this is intended to override that or whether the Minister still sees that there is some room for rights consideration as is intended by a section 6, 5 and 4 of the BORA.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022f509346649bdeb50673fa66c551f5f76\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f509346649bdeb50673fa66c551f5f76\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:25)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, responding to the member Vanushi Walters: indeed, I can confirm that this clause is intended to mean that the type of residents to be housed in a new development will not be a matter that\u2019s in scope, because what we want is for our cities and the places where people live to be open and accessible to all, and rules and decisions not to exclude or discriminate on who the type of resident is. We\u2019ve been very conscious, very purposeful, and very directive in making sure that in the new system, that will not be a consideration. I hope that puts the member at ease and deals with that question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI just want to come back to questions from Rachel Brooking about clause 14(1)(h) which was a proposal to add additional qualifiers onto effects outside of the bill, being the effects on landscape, if that landscape is not outstanding or not an area of high natural character. This Government is very clear that we want plans, rules, planners, decision makers, national policy direction, and standards to focus on protecting what matters and protecting what is important. In this case, we want the system to focus on protecting outstanding landscapes and high natural character. We\u2019ve been explicit that if it doesn\u2019t fit into that group then it is, in effect, out of scope.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to just address the member\u2019s question on clause 14(2)(a) where the member has proposed adding an additional qualifier to proposed new clause 14(2), which is, for those listening and watching: \u201CThis section does not restrict the consideration or [the] management of\u2014(a) areas of high natural character within wetlands, lakes, rivers \u2026 in the coastal environment \u2026 within 3 nautical miles [of the shore] \u2026 (b) [and] outstanding natural [features and landscapes] in the coastal environment \u2026 (c) significant historic heritage: (d) sites of significance to M\u0101ori: [and] (e) the effects of natural hazards.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThose are all in scope of the system. We\u2019ve just been explicit in this part that they are not excluded, but if we\u2019re going to start adding additional matters like green space and urban trees, the next thing is you\u2019re really starting to introduce matters that are out of scope of the legislation in terms of what the effects are that we\u2019re trying to manage, because there are positive effects of green spaces and positive effects of urban trees that councils or private property owners are\u2014quite happy for them to invest in those things and to provide for those things, but they\u2019re not an effect that needs to be managed in the context of this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022 data-id=\u0022b5c0a0484d28b4c5fc3e0b5b558dc984\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b5c0a0484d28b4c5fc3e0b5b558dc984\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green\u2014Rongotai) (09:29)\u003C/span\u003E: T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Madam Chair, thank you. I have a specific question about the wording in clause 14(1)(b): \u201Cnegative effects of development on trade competition\u201D are out of scope. What is meant by \u201Cnegative\u201D in this context, because I would read it as reducing trade competition is therefore out of scope but then it says \u201Cincluding on competing providers of input goods and services:\u201D, so that\u2019s just a bit unclear. Do we think \u201Cnegative effects of development on trade competition\u201D means less competition or less competition? The second half of that paragraph seems to imply that you can\u2019t consider that it would make things more competitive and that would adversely affect a business that\u2019s there\u2014let\u2019s say, because a competing business, a competing supermarket, is going to set up. But then I would think that would be a positive effect of the development on trade competition, so I\u2019m just a bit confused about that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhile I\u2019m standing, just in case I don\u2019t get another call on this part, I just want to ask the Minister: while there\u2019s this\u2014you would not find a bigger advocate for allowing more housing within existing urban areas than I. I want to ask: under this regime, who is responsible when the impact of a development becomes clear? I have a very specific example in Island Bay at the moment with the Erskine Chapel. A whole lot of housing was put in there, which is great\u2014council gave consent for it. Unfortunately, there\u2019s a lot of paved-over area because it\u2019s very car oriented\u2014it doesn\u2019t need to be. But there are now constituents who live down the hill from the Erskine Chapel who say that since that development went in, their house has repeatedly flooded. Who bears the cost of that impact when that was not foreseen? The council isn\u2019t in a position to and doesn\u2019t seem like they\u2019re going to be able to like. And I\u2019m not even sure if, legally, there\u2019s a way to hold them responsible. Where\u2019s the developer? Is it the owners of the\u2014you know, that\u2019s the sort of problem and impact on individuals and families and neighbours that we\u2019re trying to avoid through a sensible approach to planning.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m just a little bit concerned that in the rush to get rid of harmful rules or a harmful approach to planning, the Government is actually getting rid of everything. Obviously, that happened under the previous regime, but I could see it happening a lot more because it\u2019s not clear. When these things become obvious after the fact of permitting and consent, who is helping these people. They\u2019re being told their insurance company is only going to repair the job so many times; the insurance company is never going to provide the funding to significantly protect the property. It is clearly an impact from the way the development happened\u2014not the fact that there\u2019s more homes, but the fact that they didn\u2019t do sufficient work to ensure that the stormwater runoff wouldn\u2019t adversely affect places around there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m just trying to get to the fact that we heard in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, particularly around clause 4, that there were issues around cumulative impact of developments\u2014how does that get taken into account?\u2014because it seems like it could be excluded.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust to the Minister\u2019s point: why should urban trees be considered? I mean, urban trees and planting and green space are always to prevent flooding and over-inundation of our reticulated stormwater network, so that\u2019s a reason why it probably should be in the goals.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m just interested if the Minister can address: under this regime, who is going to be responsible for considering what the impact of stormwater and flooding is going to be of specific developments? And how do we hold people accountable? Who pays the price when we get that wrong and we\u2019ve permitted too much of the wrong type of development that\u2019s then affecting other people?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00229ebb4dc9685bafdbb69e7070a3c5293e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229ebb4dc9685bafdbb69e7070a3c5293e\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:33)\u003C/span\u003E: In answer to the member the Hon Julie Anne Genter\u2019s first question about effects excluded under this Act\u2014clause 14(1)(b): \u201Cnegative effects of development on trade competition, including on competing providers of input goods and services:\u201D\u2014the intention is that we want more competition, and that effects on a trade competitor, which have been have been brought into planning discussions in the past, are specifically excluded. So if a business wants to set up, sell something to people, trade, exchange value for value with other members of the community, their ability to carry on trade should not be a matter that the planning system needs to consider.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b8590e51929860134e3df9bb1c29e657\u0022\u003EHon Members: \u003C/span\u003EMadam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002226ee3dcf6c502eb42aae392020f95f26\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: So in answer to the member\u2019s second question\u2014we\u2019ve got two hours\u2014about a specific case\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229085a358b5d71f0b7a50754a609fac8c\u0022\u003ETamatha Paul\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019ve got longer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002200d7e7835b0b25681d42b8734a9f8a47\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, yeah, I\u2019ll be back. A specific case where it sounds like there\u2019s some stormwater impacts on people downstream from a development. Look, nothing\u2019s changed in the way that those type of matters are viewed between the Resource Management Act and the system that we are intending to implement. But there will always be a need to assess effects beyond the boundary, like stormwater runoff, and if the member was to look to cause 15, \u201CConsidering adverse effects of activities\u201D, the member will be able to see what is envisaged there. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002271f1c46bb138d3285268086629e37e5c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll just make a point before I take another call, in that the Minister was referring to his two hours. There\u2019s still lots of questions, but I will note that a lot of the people asking questions are taking quite full speeches. I\u2019m not going to close anyone down while there\u2019s still relevant questions going, but I\u2019d really like the questions to be a bit more succinct than what a number of them have been this morning.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u2014you\u2019ve been very patient.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022babbd38e6b3b572097e220847f07ff87\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022babbd38e6b3b572097e220847f07ff87\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (09:35)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to ask two brief questions of the Minister, just clarifying earlier what he said. I\u2019m on page 45 at clause 13(4). He clarified that the hierarchy, as he is provided, doesn\u2019t apply to the Minister\u2019s decisions, and he drew on that, sort of, judicial power for the reasoning for that. When the Minister\u2019s appointees are making decisions using the Minister\u2019s public power, does that also apply to them\u2014say, the hearings panel in Auckland, which is a special case; I just want to clarify whether it applies to them or not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe next question I have is about both the effects and procedural principles. This is a new substantive question, it is about how the hierarchy applies when making procedural decisions when also considering the broader requirement of the duties, which exist at common law, under Te Tiriti o Waitangi: the duty of active protection, the duty of good faith, the duty to consult. I\u2019m asking him, in a similar way to how human rights are intended to provide\u2014at the end of all exercise of public power, you also need to comply with our international obligations in relation to human rights. We also have constitutional arrangements in New Zealand which are meant to work in the way that once you have gone through the process of exercising power which is constituted in legislation, you also need to apply the duties that exist within our constitutional framework, which are those duties to consult and of active prediction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to both the effects and the procedural principles, I understand what the member is trying to do here to limit the effects of that, but my question to him first is: if the purpose of narrowing the bill is to provide certainty around which M\u0101ori interests the planning system recognises, what happens to those legitimate M\u0101ori interests which have not been anticipated at the moment in time or by his bill? A normal way of interpreting, say, the Resource Management Act or other legislation would be to read them in, because we have that duty of active protection within our constitutional framework that sits above the legislative framework.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy second question to that is, to the member: does he accept that the courts have developed that consultation requirement specifically as part of the informed decision-making processes that we require people who are exercising a public function, because the Crown cannot always determine for itself in advance of the consultation procedure the nature and extent of M\u0101ori interests that are affected. It\u2019s a special question in the resource management context because those rights are protected in different ways\u2014land use, forests, rights to \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Etaonga tuku iho\u003C/span\u003E [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office]\u2014and the Minister, in designing this legislation, has given some of those special precedence in the hierarchy of decision making. But the point is that we had to go through this in the court system from the 1980s to the 1990s to today because Governments have needed to update the way that consultation works under our constitutional arrangements. So I want to ask him: in the procedural principles, how we are meant to read his limiting scope and the broader scope which exists at the same time?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00229c5a2433b5038c66775f8964cf73893b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229c5a2433b5038c66775f8964cf73893b\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:39)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll just come back to clauses 12(a) and 13(4). If I wasn\u2019t clear in a previous answer: 12(a) does not apply to the Minister; 13(4) does.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn answer to the second question that the member asked, we\u2019ve been very clear that we intend to provide for M\u0101ori interests, as set out in the goals in the scope of the legislation, through M\u0101ori participation in development of national instruments, regional spatial plans, and land use plans. The reason for that is where the most strategic matters are discussed and agreed on in terms of national instruments, national policy direction, and national standards\u2014for example, the regional spatial plans that identify, say, where natural hazards are and where infrastructure is, and land use plans, which set the rules for a district, for example. We feel very strongly that that is the right place for M\u0101ori interests to be identified and expressed, and that extends to the identification and protection of sites of significance to M\u0101ori, some of which are identified here\u2014it\u2019s not an exhaustive list\u2014enabling the development and protection of identified M\u0101ori land, because for far too long, we\u2019ve heard that it\u2019s too difficult to develop M\u0101ori land. There are a number of barriers to that, not all of which are covered by this legislation, but in this legislation we want to be absolutely clear that we want to enable the development of identified M\u0101ori land. That is the intention of this legislation. I\u2019ve covered the intention of how this Government intends to provide for M\u0101ori interests.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question that the member raised around what the courts\u2019 job is to develop the law: the courts\u2019 job is\u2014and I urge the member to refer to the speech that the Attorney-General, the Hon Chris Bishop, gave to the Law Society a few weeks ago. The Minister was absolutely clear: it is Parliament\u2019s job to establish the law through parliamentary process and it the courts\u2019 job to interpret that law. During the development of this legislation, the Minister and I have held that front of mind, which is why we have chosen very carefully the words in the legislation, and they mean what we intend them to mean.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022 data-id=\u0022395744ac2f40e08f791145c6eaed82f1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022395744ac2f40e08f791145c6eaed82f1\u0022\u003ETAMATHA PAUL (Green\u2014Wellington Central) (09:42)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first contribution in this debate, so I appreciate you allowing me to take a call. My call is going to focus on clause 11(1)(i), continuing on the question lines around M\u0101ori interests. I appreciate the Minister\u2019s comments clarifying intent, but I\u2019m more interested in the avenues by which that intent will be delivered. I have, I think, three tabled amendments which seek to strengthen and protect M\u0101ori interests within this bill, that I will speak to as well, if I have time\u2014taking the Chair\u2019s advice to stick to questions and not yarn for too long.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of those M\u0101ori interests being provided for in the bill, I want to understand what avenues councils will have at a regional or at a city council level. What tools will they have available to make those interests known and to actually give effect to partnership between iwi or hap\u016B and councils? Because that was the intent of Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe. Those were the arrangements by which iwi and hap\u016B and councils or local authorities could get together and develop shared principles, or plan shared aspirations for land use within their rohe, and those have now been taken out\u2014with great announcement by the Government parties and in collaboration with Federated Farmers and other advocacy groups. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo if the Minister could let me know what some of the avenues are where that collaboration and where that planning takes place, that would be really helpful. None of us on this side of the House would say that saying, \u201COh, the councils and iwi will just have to work it out.\u201D is sufficient, because the reason that Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe existed in the first place is because councils across the country were so inconsistent with their consideration of protecting special M\u0101ori interests, sites, and aspirations. What is the vehicle by which those points under clause 11(1)(i) will be actually carried through, because those are the ends we\u2019ve got on the bill, but what are the means by which that will be expressed? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other question that I have on that point is, how has the Minister considered the fact that so many settlements that have already been settled across the country with various iwi and some hap\u016B groups, and those who have legislation that recognises multiple hap\u016B within a rohe\u2014has the Minister considered that those Treaty settlements were negotiated on the assumption that the provisions to protect M\u0101ori interests existed, which existed formally within the Resource Management Act? Now that those interests have been obliterated, how do you go about rectifying settlements that were made on assumptions that no longer exist? That\u2019s really important. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe final question that I had on M\u0101ori\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002293aee202b6d66c353c0e23a73f05c9fb\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve just been told that your most recent point was back in Part 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022932151854656659fdf40baf0c12db548\u0022\u003ETAMATHA PAUL\u003C/span\u003E: OK. That\u2019s all right. I\u2019ll come back to this point that I\u2019ve been talking about, and, as a genuine question for the Minister, whether he and the Hon Chris Bishop have considered issuing a national direction using the tools available in this part, in terms of policy direction and policy statements, and if there\u2019s an intention to use those instruments to actually provide direction on Te Tiriti o Waitangi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI don\u2019t know if the Minister is aware of this, but the competency throughout councils in this country to actually understand what Te Tiriti means, what rights were entrenched, and what different iwi and hap\u016B have entrenched in their settlements or agreements with council is lacking. Competency is completely lacking across the country. It\u2019s inconsistent. It depends on whether the iwi or hap\u016B has the resources to actually participate, because some iwi are very small. They might not even have planning experts within their post-settlement governance entity or whatever entity set-up that they\u2019ve got. Would the Minister consider issuing some form of policy instrument, mandated within this bill, to actually provide some direction on how councils will deliver Te Tiriti? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI haven\u2019t even touched my amendments, so I\u2019ll hopefully take another call\u2014actually, I\u2019ll take another call. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00226aff8a1a9e7e6e812633a1073cf3195e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226aff8a1a9e7e6e812633a1073cf3195e\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:47)\u003C/span\u003E: Look, many of the matters that the member raised were covered in debate last night on Part 1, particularly around Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe agreements, but let\u2019s be clear, M\u0101ori participation is provided for in terms of iwi participation agreements that are provided for in legislation. There may be other ways that councils seek to engage\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a36f4610ccb56f890c0b5833ae45ad2f\u0022\u003ETamatha Paul\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m asking for specificity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f286b5bce870cf34059254399a71db10\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: In answer to the specific question, yes, national standards can be used to provide more detail around how that engagement may occur or is required to occur. Councils are also required to consult with iwi authorities before notifying plans that have a regional role. There is provision for it. We do recognise that, across the country, there is variability in the way local government engages with M\u0101ori groups about various matters, but in relation to this legislation, we\u2019re very clear about what is in scope. It\u2019s in the goals set out in clause 11(1)(i), and we intend that the Crown fulfils its obligations and that those acting under the legislation do too.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022 data-id=\u00227cc176256ee8dc178c9fdf7c9de8e606\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227cc176256ee8dc178c9fdf7c9de8e606\u0022\u003EVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (09:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. This is actually a supplementary question from a question I asked a while earlier on reasonable accommodation. I just did want to say that the Minister made the point about being clear in terms of their objectives. Of course, one of the things that courts look to is the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E, and, particularly, responses from the Chair during this session. In my last question, the Minister made two comments which lead to two very different conclusions, so I just want to put those back to the Minister to be clear on which outcome he is saying will eventuate from the bill as it\u2019s drafted now. On the on the first hand, when I talked about reasonable accommodation and whether a council could set guidelines in terms of disability for example, the Minister said no at the start of his answer. For example, if the council said they wanted 10 percent of housing in a particular area that had reasonable accommodation in terms of transport, according to the first half of his answer, it sounds like that would be unlawful or outside the scope of the legislation. At the end of his answer, I was heartened because he then said \u201Caccessibility for all\u201D. That suggested to me that his view is that the legislation, essentially, directs that all planners in this space must have their mind turned to accessibility at all times. Now, if that\u2019s the case, that is potentially compliant with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The Minister\u2019s laughing, but this is important because it does determine what will be the day-to-day lived experiences of thousands and thousands of New Zealanders going forward. It could also result in litigation if the Minister isn\u2019t clear about what his intent\u2014what the Minister\u2019s intent is\u2014is at this stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022cb88046af0ee5f1b03d0ba99229b5d12\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cb88046af0ee5f1b03d0ba99229b5d12\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:50)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me clarify that. Clause 14, \u201CEffects outside [the] scope of the Act \u2026 the type of residents to be housed in new development.\u201D We\u2019re very clear about that language. That\u2019s what it means. \u201CA person exercising or performing a function, duty, or power under this Act who is considering the effects of an activity must disregard\u2014 \u2026 the type of residents to be housed in a new development:\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, the member Vanushi Walters then segued into outcomes. Look, under clause 11, \u201CGoals\u201D, we\u2019re very clear the instruments of this bill \u201Cmust seek to achieve the following goals\u201D, but we\u2019re also clear that\u2019s not in all places at all times.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo clarify any misconception the member had that the type of residents to be housed in new development\u2014they are effects outside the scope of the Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022 data-id=\u00220bb2174882591c970bd3fc94239a30de\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220bb2174882591c970bd3fc94239a30de\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (09:51)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019d like to draw the Minister\u2019s attention to new clause 15A. It is on page 46 of the bill. This was put in, I think, by the Environment Committee. I don\u2019t sit on that select committee, so I am concerned about this particular clause. What the clause does is it says that a person, when performing a function under this Act, when considering the effects of the activity, \u201Cmust not \u2026 consider any adverse effect on climate change of any greenhouse gas emissions that \u2026 may \u2026 be increased by the activity, whether directly or indirectly; [but] (b) may consider any positive effects of the activity that are associated with avoiding, reducing, removing, or displacing greenhouse gas emissions.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s an imbalance there. I was trying to think through an example, and I guess one example might come down to wetlands. We know that, with some activities, developers\u2014whoever\u2014take particular effort to either protect an existing wetland or to restore a wetland. Of course, that has a positive impact on climate. That would be, I guess, a tick in the developer\u2019s box. It\u2019s a good thing to do. But, by the same token, if that same developer actually destroys a wetland, which has a negative effect on climate, then that would not count as a negative in assessing the activities, and so on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, there may be better example than that, but it does seem, to me, to be an imbalance here that if a project can consider the positive impacts on climate, why can\u2019t it also consider the negative impacts on climate? I do regard that as an imbalance. It would be good if the Minister could explain why that imbalance is thought to be appropriate and if it\u2019s rectified somewhere else in the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022bb5639043d261c1ea574e612e4aa75e8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bb5639043d261c1ea574e612e4aa75e8\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:54)\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019re very clear\u2014and the reason that this new clause 15A has been inserted is, essentially, for the avoidance of doubt that we already have a cap and price on emissions through the emissions trading scheme. We already have the Climate Change Response Act, which provides for policy and regulations. The intention of this Government is to reduce regulatory duplication and overlap, avoid matters being considered in multiple scenarios, whether it\u2019s a Building Act matter or a climate change matter, whatever it is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo it\u2019s very clear: there\u2019s already legislation and systems to deal with the adverse effects of climate change, but we do want decision makers to be able to consider the positive effects of, say, reducing emissions, because there may well be cases where planners and decision makers need to make trade-offs about, say, the establishment of batteries, wind turbines, solar panels, and the impacts that that may have on others. We want to make it clear that where there are positive effects of an activity, such as providing for energy security and affordability and diversification of the energy system, that they can be considered as a positive effect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Government\u2019s intention is very clear. The language is clear. It means what we say in the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u0022a7b3e573e2670863ca6bafd07c63a8ca\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a7b3e573e2670863ca6bafd07c63a8ca\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (09:55)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. It\u2019s really great to be examining the clause 15s. What I\u2019m really keen to pick up, very briefly, is a clarification from the Minister around the \u201Coutside scope\u201D clause 14, because I\u2019ve got some really specific examples that we heard during the Environment Committee time, which I\u2019m really interested in the Minister\u2019s response to where these communities actually go, because what we\u2019re talking about here is concerns that were raised about outstanding natural landscape and areas of high natural character, essentially, being too high of a bar.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe heard from the likes of Waitomo District Council, particularly around their cast system; their rare, their valuable, their fragile areas, like geothermal features, braided rivers, high-country tussock landscapes. What is the pathway now for these areas that don\u2019t meet the high bar to actually be provided for and considered in the planning landscape? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI note, particularly, we had a really good submission from the New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects, and they raised similar concerns about these cumulative losses around the landscapes that have very significant values but they have not been at that bar to actually meet either outstanding or a specific categorisation of \u201Chigh natural character\u201D. They described the exclusions as that if you really want to protect those areas of outstanding landscape or high natural areas, these exclusions of the areas that, basically, lead up to them are\u2014they use the term\u2014\u201Cstructural blind spots.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI really want to hear from the Minister how regions, district councils\u2014however they\u2019re trying to provide for these areas in the spatial plans, how they\u2019re actually going to do this, when the bar, essentially, is really high. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00220d398645b9ce53ce8049f263014679d2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220d398645b9ce53ce8049f263014679d2\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:58)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I do welcome the member Lan Pham\u2019s question, particularly as a self-confessed geology nerd. I\u2019m familiar with the cast formations in the Waitomo district. I\u2019ve been underground in the Waitomo Caves a number of times, including in other caves, and I\u2019ve spent quite a bit of time on friends\u2019 farms in that part of the country, and it is fascinating. But there is one thing that I can reassure people who are listening and watching: hardly anyone at all lives in Waitomo, and that there may well be a need\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c10aa84068478049d0cccd01e6a573b8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: A few people do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221fe50fab1d531f254cd27bf1c221a325\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: Hardly anyone lives in Waitomo, compared to places like Auckland, and there may well be a need for future development, including in places where this underlying geology exists. But if we were to recognise all of the underlying geology in New Zealand and attribute some special characteristic to it, we wouldn\u2019t get very far.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve been very, very clear that, in the goal, we want to protect areas of high natural character and outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate development. We intend that development proceeds in places that have these values as long as it is not inappropriate. That\u2019s different from the resource management system, which provided for the protection of a whole lot of landscapes, features, and natural character. That has locked up land that could otherwise be developed for productive use. You might want to build a hotel on it, you might want to build a gondola, you might want to build a luge, or, you never know, you might want to set up another Waitomo Caves operation down in Waitomo.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe resource management system is far too restrictive. We recognise that New Zealand is largely empty in many of the places, even where development is possible, and we want to make sure that development that is not inappropriate can be provided for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227220e0cfcb41aebfbcfec9749fe47420\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m going to take a call from the Hon Rachel Brooking. We\u2019ve done quite a lot of coverage of this up until about Subpart 2 and we\u2019ve just touched on clause 15, but I know that the member has a process that she follows around her questions, and so I just wanted to check to see if there are any burning questions left up until that point before Subpart 2, because I really would like to move forward.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u002258601ce2d03cf125cd77bc59c41f68ea\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002258601ce2d03cf125cd77bc59c41f68ea\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (10:01)\u003C/span\u003E: There are, Madam Chair, and these are new questions that haven\u2019t been addressed yet on clause 14. Clause 14 is so important because it is really the mechanism by which the ACT Party and the member Simon Court are restricting environmental considerations and are enabling what he\u2019s specified, and so that\u2019s why we\u2019re quite focused on it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to ask, though\u2014as I\u2019ve said\u2014some quite different questions. One is in response to the member\u2019s response to Lan Pham, and that was that with regard to these \u201CEffects outside the scope of this Act\u201D considered in clause 14, it\u2019s not just for consents that these factors must not be considered but that they must be disregarded; it\u2019s for the planning, as well. That\u2019s the one question, and I ask whether he can confirm that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy second question is on clause 14(1)(c), and it is that \u201Cretail distribution effects:\u201D are outside of the scope. This is quite a new idea. I agree with what the member the Hon Julie Anne Genter was saying with regard to \u201Ctrade competition,\u201D and I take the member\u2019s point about the wording. But with regard to \u201Cretail distribution effects:\u201D, I\u2019m interested in the mischief that the member is trying to avoid by including \u201Cretail distribution effects:\u201D in that, what analysis he has and what he expects to happen without retail distribution effects being considered, and what that will do for our town centres. That\u2019s one other question, and so that\u2019s two questions on clause 14.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen, at clause 14(1)(e), we have \u201Cthe character, appearance, and aesthetic qualities of a use, development, or building:\u201D. Is it the member\u2019s understanding that paragraph (e) means that the urban design is disregarded? Where does urban design sit with regard to that paragraph (e)? Is there any room for urban design, at all? That\u2019s three questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe fourth question is this: a new insertion in this Amendment Paper 709, at new clause 14(1A), is this concept that if activities are \u201Clocated more than 3 nautical miles from the landward boundary of the coastal marine area,\u201D their effects on an \u201Coutstanding natural landscape or feature:\u201D or an \u201Carea of high natural character.\u201D must also be disregarded. Now, I imagine that most of the activities that would be located more than three nautical miles from the landward boundary are going to be either offshore wind turbines\u2014I don\u2019t know if that would be onshore wind in some places\u2014or aquaculture. If the member can talk us through why this is now in the Amendment Paper\u2014so this is a new concept. It\u2019s fresh. It is a policy change, and so I don\u2019t need to ask my standard question. What is the mischief about the \u201C3 nautical miles\u201D, and what is it intended to capture?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen my last question on clause 14 is this. There was a discussion earlier between the member and the Hon Julie Anne Genter about stormwater, where the member said that nothing has changed, and he was referencing boundaries. Is it the member\u2019s understanding that the effects outside the scope of this bill which could apply to plans\u2014if he can confirm that\u2014is somehow restricted to boundaries, and how does his understanding of boundaries come into play with this? This is desperately important because, of course, these provisions relate to the ones that will have near immediate effect. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI can move on to clause 15. I\u2019ve got\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002229a8de5ea6ba5eb47817a674e5bbb662\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Perhaps we\u2019ll get Simon Court to answer your questions on clause 14, and then I\u2019ll give you another call for clause 15.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e33ec80df2e58f4a5de05e65eb9939a0\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Great, thank you. It\u2019s just a short one on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002241b6df39fcb32a1703e0a79885b2d108\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002241b6df39fcb32a1703e0a79885b2d108\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (10:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019ll just come to \u201Cretail distribution effects:\u201D first\u2014effects that are now outside the scope of the legislation. For far too long, those who seek to develop commercial retail premises in new communities or in new locations have faced this contention that no development must be concentrated in, say, an existing town centre\u2014that\u2019s what the member referred to\u2014and, as a result, there\u2019s been extensive time and cost delays to the establishment of, say, new supermarkets.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere was a case in Christchurch where the council in Christchurch said, \u201CYou can\u2019t build a new supermarket in a new subdivision, because there are already enough supermarkets.\u201D Well, this Government has been very clear that we want more trade competition. We want more places that people can go because that promotes affordability and choice, and so when it comes to excluding retail distribution effects, we\u2019re very clear that decision makers\u2019 plans and rules should not be able to limit where people want to set up a business because somebody in council might say, \u201COh, there are enough supermarkets.\u201D That\u2019s not the role of Government and that\u2019s not the role of local government. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen it comes to town centres, there are many other ways that local government, in conjunction with their business associations, can get together and work out plans to revitalise their town centres. Now, if the member wishes to engage me in a flat white after this session, I\u2019m happy to go into it in detail, but that\u2019s not what this legislation is intended to do, and that is why retail distribution effects are out of scope. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, urban design: is urban design in scope? Urban design on private property is not in scope. That is in response to the question on clause 14\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a19b0ffaf1b5147dbd250a1a5a66e95c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Clause 14(1)(e).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022421fb25a7a0b89153428be8dbe7cb1c5\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014clause 14(1)(e)\u2014thank you, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EComing to clause 14(1A), look, if you\u2019re sitting on a beach, it\u2019s very, very difficult to see more than three miles out to sea, which is about five kilometres, and so we\u2019re being very clear that the effects of an activity on any outstanding natural landscape or feature or any area of high natural character must be disregarded. We intend that developments of all kinds can take place in the coastal area in order to take advantage of the economic and other opportunities that that provides, and so we\u2019re being very clear that if it\u2019s farther than three miles out to sea, these matters are out of scope. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225713d96e6f7a239b4d439801cd8104e8\u0022\u003EHon Members: \u003C/span\u003EMadam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227bf7073c078942ec64a0c35571657143\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Rachel Brooking indicated that she wanted to ask some questions on clause 15.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u002265d98f0a923368146a4513a9ca410617\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002265d98f0a923368146a4513a9ca410617\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (10:08)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes\u2014thank you, Madam Chair\u2014and I\u2019m just reminding the member Simon Court that I did have a question about what processes clause 14 applies to beyond consents. I asked whether it applies to plans and the Minister\u2019s decisions, as well, and so there\u2019s that question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn clause 15, \u201CConsidering adverse effects of activities\u201D, at subclause (1)(b), there is \u201Cmust not consider a less than minor adverse effect\u201D\u2014and \u201Cless than minor\u201D is a term that will be familiar to practitioners\u2014\u201Cexcept where their cumulative effect results in a minor or more than minor adverse effect.\u201D My question on this is: how does the member envisage the identification of cumulative effects in this system? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe know that cumulative effects have always been a problem within the resource management framework because, of course, they are difficult to manage if you just say that they are cumulative. Whilst one application on its own might not do very much damage, if you were to have 10 applications, then, combined, they could have a very negative effect, and so that is the cumulative effect. If he can explain how that is going to be managed in clause 15, that would be very useful. It\u2019s difficult\u2014cumulative effects is difficult.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen I just have one final question on this subpart. That goes to new clause 15A, \u201CConsidering climate change effects\u201D, and there was an exchange before between the Hon Dr Deborah Russell and Simon Court, the member in the chair. He talked about the positive effects of the activity that could be and that can be considered, and the references were to batteries and things like that. Now, I\u2019m interested in urban planning. Does he think that those positive effects can also apply to urban planning? An example would be something around public transport. If you were putting in a bus lane, do you get the advantage of that consideration of a public effect under new clause 15A(b)? Those are my questions on Subpart 1 of Part 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002222042ee2af1810f5c25a2b389b21cfb1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002222042ee2af1810f5c25a2b389b21cfb1\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (10:11)\u003C/span\u003E: Look, I thank the member for her question. I\u2019ll just come back to a question that she asked in a previous question about stormwater matters. The effects of stormwater beyond the property are in scope and will continue to be.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002291b4f3a3532f108235cdb3177e3b061a\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Where does it say that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222be3f99d0a64fe0b877bda6eb1ce6bae\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the member\u2019s free to ask another question when she gets the next call. Yes, clause 14 applies to all in the system. The question about cumulative effects in relation to clause 15, \u201CConsidering adverse effects of activities\u201D\u2014cumulative effects can be detected through monitoring and the need for enforcement, and then councils can choose to change plans, change rules, and, potentially, there can be changes to national standards as a result of identifying issues associated with cumulative effects through monitoring and fulfilment. There are some potential cumulative effects that can obviously be assessed upfront, such as multiple small water takes from a kitchen, and that is envisaged by this system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe member also asked a question about considering the positive effects of an activity for avoiding, remedying, reducing, or displacing greenhouse gas emissions. Would a bus lane be a positive effect? Yes, indeed. The intention of the legislation is to encourage good stuff that leads to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions but does not punish or stop other things. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227ce0cd42cc9c9f7b56440aa4ee519c92\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I want to make it quite clear that I want to move on to Subpart 2 now, but, in fairness, does one of those three people standing up on the side of the Greens have a question prior to clause 16?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222cec78f15e37764f91cb51509308ca75\u0022\u003EScott Willis\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022777cf036d12b2f005ee42f3c3cfda22c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Scott Willis hasn\u2019t asked a question yet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022 data-id=\u0022f15dea154e2dc700e9d337b9ef419807\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f15dea154e2dc700e9d337b9ef419807\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS (Green) (10:13)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate this, and certainly, my question is prior to Subpart 2\u2014clause 15A. We\u2019ve had two previous questions from my colleagues in Labour, but the Minister yesterday asserted that climate change is dealt with elsewhere, so it shouldn\u2019t be in the Planning Bill. I missed the irony in that response, because we can see that climate change is dealt with in the fast-track legislation because it\u2019s going to open up the Denniston Plateau, and that climate change is dealt with in the Gas Security Fund. Those are bits of legislation that are opening up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMy question is about this asymmetric upside that this bill gives us, because new clause 15A(a) says that a person \u201Cmust not \u2026 consider any adverse effect on climate change of any greenhouse gas emissions that will or may result from or be increased by the activity, whether directly or indirectly\u201D, but then clause 15A(1)(b), as we\u2019ve heard, says that we \u201Cmay consider any positive effects of the activity that are associated with avoiding, reducing, removing, or displacing greenhouse gas emissions\u201D. How is it rational that we can consider the upside but not the downside? We can\u2019t consider the greenhouse gas emissions of a coalmine, but we can count the use of electric vehicle heavy vehicles at the coal mine. Can the Minister really explain the rationale behind this, where we\u2019re not considering the adverse effects but we are considering some of the positive impacts, and we have a commitment to meet our climate change greenhouse gas emissions by 2050? I\u2019m really trying to understand how this works together\u2014why it\u2019s rational. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00222421c97951a6e1c8e43d8c10cac48a6c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222421c97951a6e1c8e43d8c10cac48a6c\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (10:15)\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019ve gone over that ground extensively with the Minister last night. I\u2019ve answered a number of questions today which were basically on the same topic. The legislation\u2019s very clear; the drafting is very clear. It means what it says.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022569e146b79f826937f1e98f9bd1e0965\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I am going to take a call now from the Hon Rachel Brooking, because we are moving on to Subpart 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002286a20689d9b65cd20f0e60c7325c4cba\u0022\u003ESteve Abel\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f9162c89221194a61625d205827575b2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Steve Abel\u2014not questioning my ruling, of course. I\u2019ve made it very clear that we need to keep moving. I\u2019ve made notes of all of the things that have been discussed and we are starting to go over old ground, so I want to move on. The Hon Rachel Brooking.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00224da1aedeb2fb1869ebf80147c68ce34b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224da1aedeb2fb1869ebf80147c68ce34b\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (10:16)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I do not have very many questions on Subpart 2 of Part 2, but I do have one\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002246dcf622e3f98b38719cdfd3f1b99840\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m trying to hear the Hon Rachel Brooking, please.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022689c58158e84570f3d7eac681d7cf23e\u0022\u003ETom Rutherford\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, I\u2019m just getting over the last call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002216a5182cd6a9bebc0d1cf84540de6118\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225d5acb5afc8e921d8a02f0e97f50b112\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: I do have one Amendment Paper that I\u2019ll get to in a moment, but most of my questions around this subpart just relate to the changes that have been made in the Amendment Paper and whether or not they are policy changes or if they are the move-arounds that we were talking about earlier. I\u2019d just remind the member that he didn\u2019t answer my question about the boundaries and where it is that things are restricted to boundaries or not boundaries.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAnyway, it might just be useful if the member could go through these pages, from page 50 to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fc00e3dc54e399d97db544a0cbd42629\u0022\u003ETom Rutherford\u003C/span\u003E: Page 79?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002217c639c57e58e2568a2a203b836fae6b\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Page 79, you say across there? Oh, to the end of Subpart 2. That would be useful, to say whether or not they are policy changes.  Then, actually, my amendment is on Subpart 3, so I don\u2019t have any other specific questions on Subpart 2, apart from those that might come up if the member tells us that, actually, some of these amendments are policy amendments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022c8e8f5e1486481fe1fb40dc6ced71b03\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c8e8f5e1486481fe1fb40dc6ced71b03\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (10:18)\u003C/span\u003E: As far as I can tell, there are no substantive policy changes in Subpart 2. There are changes to better reflect policy intent and Parliamentary Counsel Office drafting clarity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019d just come back to the member\u2019s question around boundaries\u2014what\u2019s in and what\u2019s out. She felt like that wasn\u2019t clear. I did make it clear that stormwater effects beyond the boundary are clearly within the scope. So are things like overshadowing, but building layout and matters internal to the layout of the building are not in scope.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022 data-id=\u00223bae268c3447ffb2027149de5f7a437c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223bae268c3447ffb2027149de5f7a437c\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR (Labour) (10:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair, and I apologise, I haven\u2019t been in the Chamber all morning\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022615131df3c8333bcc1ad2a0973bcc6ad\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Just for clarity, we\u2019re on Subpart 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002284df5b92212de5604229a9251fee1463\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR\u003C/span\u003E: Subpart 2? Clause 14, or we\u2019ve moved beyond\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eeb39c7281a03124a7bc62613922ed96\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019ve moved on. It\u2019s clause 16 and beyond.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b30998be17cb8260fd964c740c5a81b7\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, OK. You can\u2019t go back? It\u2019s still in Part 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221368fd47c13fff0e585b7ef72c76d617\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: No, we\u2019re not going back.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022a237f5e5f074334789ca92599e1e6809\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a237f5e5f074334789ca92599e1e6809\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (10:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228d0076e7583ca25e29dbef3760a8b154\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I was just about to take Lan Pham\u2019s call, and then the member stood up\u2014so, Lan Pham.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u0022f8cff889c7c510a95dc0a9dd4c466aae\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f8cff889c7c510a95dc0a9dd4c466aae\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (10:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Noting that there haven\u2019t been substantive changes, but there have been changes, I\u2019m really keen to pick up on concerns that were raised by submitters across clause 20 and clause 21. The most consistently and strongly expressed concern was really the concern that particularly clause 20 might overprotect existing uses, particularly when it comes to hazard-prone areas. Councils were really concerned that this could undermine their own ability to reduce those risks over time by moving development away from certain areas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis was across local government, it was professional bodies, and it was hazard agencies and insurance companies. They were all concerned about this. They raised the point about the concern that buildings might be rebuilt like for like in these areas even where risk from new information is materially increasing. We had both Taituar\u0101, which is the professional body for local government professionals; and Greater Wellington Regional Council, in particular, pointing out that these clauses could actually frustrate their own adaptation and managed retreat planning. We also heard from Tauranga City Council, Tasman District Council, and Christchurch Council, seeking amendments that actually allowed them to remove existing use rights where new information has shown that hazards would then, essentially, pose intolerable risk, or increasing risk over time. One of the submitters we had was from the New Zealand Banking Association, and they talked, again, about just clearly how critical it is that this legislation steers individuals, steers councils, steers developers away from these areas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy question to the Minister is: where these clauses have now arrived at, does he feel that these concerns have been addressed? Noting that there hasn\u2019t been substantive changes, I\u2019m really keen to hear his response.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002219ea2e5fa6572f69501bfbe8d420ba62\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002219ea2e5fa6572f69501bfbe8d420ba62\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (10:22)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. The member Lan Pham raises a really important point. I\u2019ll answer the second part of the question first, on new clause 19A. New clause 19A provides for rules that can modify or extinguish the existing land-use and existing building work protections. The change that the Environment Committee added to provide a mechanism for specified natural hazard rules to enable existing land uses to be modified or extinguished to manage natural hazard risk has been retained. A further minor technical change has been provided for in this Amendment Paper to clarify that requirements for a rule to qualify is one of the special natural hazard rules that they can qualify as a natural rule or in a land-use plan and proposed land-use rules with legal effect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EBut new clause 22A provides for existing activities affected by these rules to continue while the plan-making and consenting processes are completed. The reason for that is because natural hazard rules have immediate legal effect from the time they\u2019re notified, even though the potential appeals to plan rules have not yet been completed. We\u2019ve provided for sufficient and limited flexibility so that these activities can carry on, rather than being forced to comply before the rule is finally determined. It\u2019s, essentially, a natural justice matter for people who are affected by this type of rule.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u002208800f7f8206737e580dce695f8615ea\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002208800f7f8206737e580dce695f8615ea\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (10:24)\u003C/span\u003E: That makes sense to me. I thank the member for their explanation of that. I want to ask directly about clause 22 on page 51. Existing building works\u2014this clause goes so far as to include at clause 22(1)(c)(ii) all of the allowed activities that were permissible without a consent at a certain time. We\u2019ve written in that the natural hazard rules will apply from the beginning. In answer to Lan Pham\u2019s point, in situations like the Tauranga Council, where they\u2019re notifying a very large number of landowners that their properties will be affected by flooding in the future\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe member has taken care of that situation. But in the situation where you have very long-term consents, or in the situation of, say, wharves built on properties that extend out into mangroves or into swamps or into lakes or into the sea; where those didn\u2019t need a planning consent, he\u2019s also included those. The natural hazards rules won\u2019t affect those because they\u2019re not immediately impacted by flooding or any kind of environmental impact that will cause harm to life and limb. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut they are things that councils want to regulate in a different way in the future, because they will be affected by different environmental impacts in the future, like rising sea levels and erosion of beaches. In that kind of situation, existing structures, and the rules around them, do need to change with planning changes, but I think the very broad permissive nature of what\u2019s drafted in now means that they\u2019re not. I can understand why he\u2019s done that for building works that are consented and they\u2019re stuck in the system\u2014in the situation of the Auckland developers who were just stuck in the system because the permissible activity under the old system now needed a different sort of permission in the new system. That makes sense, because the check was at the Building Act check, and those consents were short-lived, a decision maker had made a decision in a short time. But what about those wharves that are 30 years old and the fixes in the Rangitoto baches which are 90 years old\u2014can he explain that very, very permissible (ii)? It doesn\u2019t seem to make sense in those situations. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00221ded6f367fe5d3836d7f027eb37b166e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221ded6f367fe5d3836d7f027eb37b166e\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (10:26)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member Arena Williams for the question. Clause 22 is essentially a carry-over from the Resource Management Act. So status quo\u2014no change.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002259c8c39acd70f5f07c4686a46867cfef\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: But you\u2019ve added\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002281f2fc5eb70f5472621592aa2a80a5b0\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: The member\u2019s free to take another call if she has further questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAnd on clause 23 the member referred to wharves. Wharves are more fulsomely covered under the Natural Environment Bill, which we\u2019ll be getting to later in the week. I just want to be clear that if there is an existing use that was lawfully established, was permitted activity, or otherwise could have been lawfully carried out without consents, that may be sustained. And that\u2019s just with reference to clause 23. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221af5414885661f36507d676fabd719bd\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Lan Pham.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022 data-id=\u0022a92f738aa01b61d735a42af32ad14663\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a92f738aa01b61d735a42af32ad14663\u0022\u003ETAMATHA PAUL (Green\u2014Wellington Central) (10:27)\u003C/span\u003E: Ha, ha!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f9b018371364406db1e8a790f3b9ed0a\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003ETamatha Paul.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c25c1b25dfe192c8357e392402692e03\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I am sorry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b8664fe60f04b40c482ef2c00f4c83b4\u0022\u003ETAMATHA PAUL\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s all right. She is a great person.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy questions\u2014and just taking the Chair\u2019s advice around potentially moving on from Subpart 2, I thought I\u2019d better quickly ask a question about my amendment, which is tabled amendment 25 August 5.10.14. It is to replace the word \u201Cmitigate\u201D with \u201Cminimise.\u201D That\u2019s under clause 25 \u201CDuty to avoid,\u00A0minimise\u00A0mitigate, or remedy adverse effects\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI wanted to ask the Minister whether he might consider replacing the word \u201Cmitigate\u201D with \u201Cminimise\u201D. I think it\u2019s pretty self-explanatory, but, basically, mitigating means, obviously, offsetting potential adverse effects. We think that it would be good if those adverse effects didn\u2019t happen in the first place. Therefore, maybe the person undertaking the\u2014whatever they\u2019re doing with their consent, or under the plans, or under the rules, whether they should be required to instead minimise that effect, as opposed to just mitigate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00225cd6e756118f8dd7a6d50153183ead90\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225cd6e756118f8dd7a6d50153183ead90\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (10:28)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, we\u0027ve already moved on from Part 1 to Subpart 2. But I just, for the member\u2019s benefit\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229e8b22f6ecd54785c1c766c19f521ae0\u0022\u003ETamatha Paul\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, Point of Order. Point of Order Madam Chair. It\u2019s my understanding that we\u2019re still in Subpart 2. Am I\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228360cf53bc246cd78b3891195ad9e86a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Correct. And you were referring to clause 25?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002208f776d59529af245496a80fb80250f3\u0022\u003ETamatha Paul\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, within Subpart 2 and my amendment. Sorry, the Minister just said I was referring to Subpart 1, but I was referring to Subpart 2, clause 25, and my tabled amendment, which I named and numbered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022104008f6ebaf9cac7d1f16ee8a0d7d19\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Correct.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cbddc103f813e57fa38109a58406285d\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you for clarifying that, Tamatha Paul. I thought you were harking back to clause 15.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002269ab050ec6b032d1a246a078ada98610\u0022\u003ETamatha Paul\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s 25.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e604d9b342dfae379b9fd81f9da92231\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: I understand you\u2019re referring to clause 25. Thank you. I understand also that this was extensively covered in the Environment Committee and  that submitters overwhelmingly favoured retaining the use of the term \u201Cmitigate,\u201D which is a well-understood legal term, whereas \u201Cminimise\u201D would be a novel term. The select committee did not agree to change that and neither does the Minister and I.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022001f98a4b786261eb6170e60dc47efbd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022001f98a4b786261eb6170e60dc47efbd\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (10:29)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m going to move forward to Subpart 3, and this is \u201CKey instruments\u201D. Very importantly, in this subpart there is the classification of activities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn the Planning Bill, we have gotten rid of non-compliant activities\u2014and, also, controlled activities in the Planning Bill, but they come up again in the Natural Environment Bill\u2014so most of my questions, again, are about whether the member Simon Court can take us through the changes that have been made in the Amendment Paper that was lodged at the end of last week; if they are policy changes or not. I notice, of course, that at clause 38 there is permitted activity rules that require registration. If he can comment on how they are different from a controlled activity, and if, in fact, it would be simpler just to have controlled activities rather than permitted activity rules that require registration.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy Amendment Paper that I have on this is on clause 31, \u201CGuidance for classifying activities\u201D, and subclause (2)(a) relates to a \u201Cpermitted activity\u201D. Something can be classified as a permitted activity if \u201Cthe activity is acceptable, is anticipated, or achieves the desired level of use, development, or protection;\u201D\u2014and this is the important part; there is an \u201Cor\u201D after paragraph (i)\u2014\u201Cor (ii) the adverse effects of the activity are understood and can be managed:\u201D. It\u2019s one or the other, and my Amendment Paper would change that \u201Cor\u201D and make it an \u201Cand\u201D, so that to be a permitted activity, the activity has to be acceptable and the effects have to be understood. I\u2019m wondering if the member can comment on my proposed amendment there\u2014if he can also comment on the changes that have come through in this Amendment Paper and if they are changes to policy or not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe third question was on these new permitted registration clauses\u2014that\u2019s at clause\u00A038\u2014and if it would be simpler, in fact, to have it as a controlled activity, as we will get to controlled activities when we go to the Natural Environment Bill. If not, why not? What\u2019s the policy intent here?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022be9c743061dc4f6e61988971e77718a9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022be9c743061dc4f6e61988971e77718a9\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (10:32)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019ll just cover off clause 28 first. That has been deleted in its entirety as it was considered unnecessary and added complexity, and these matters can be better directed through national standards or non-statutory guidance. That was a decision that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform and I took.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOn clause 31, \u201CGuidance for classifying activities\u201D\u2014a \u201Cpermitted activity\u201D\u2014the intention is that the new system is much more permissive of activities that do not have an effect that meets the threshold. We do not want to bind up planners and decision-makers and applicants\u2014investors\u2014in having to deal with a whole lot of different constraints if we say it\u2019s permitted. So we won\u2019t be accepting the member the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s recommendation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOn clause 38, \u201CPermitted activity rules that require registration\u201D, look, there are some matters\u2014and they can be specified in subsequent national standards\u2014where it will be important to identify where certain permitted activities are taking place. That may well be to identify and manage the effects of, say, cumulative effects, but we didn\u2019t feel it was necessary to retain, from the Resource Management Act, controlled activity status, because so many more activities are going to be permitted and are going to be provided for in national standards. As the member mentioned, when it comes to the Natural Environment Bill, which we\u2019ll get to later in the week, there is a provision for controlled activities there. That\u2019s to provide certainty for investors that they can get a consent for a matter and that the conditions that are likely to come with that consent are likely to be well understood in advance. Under the Planning Bill, what we intend is that far fewer consents will be needed at all, and that\u2019s what this provides for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022aac6ffc23a2fbfb1f05b09d6a0a9b62d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022aac6ffc23a2fbfb1f05b09d6a0a9b62d\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (10:35)\u003C/span\u003E: Isn\u2019t this registration requirement, though, effectively a need for a consent? Is the member Simon Court saying, like his use of \u201Cpragmatic\u201D, that it\u2019s really about slogans and to say to different lobby groups, \u201CIt\u2019s OK. It\u2019s permitted, but\u201D\u2014but, but, but\u2014\u201Cyou need to do this registration\u201D, which makes it just like a controlled activity. Why not step above that noise and say, \u201CWell, no, there are these things that we do need to be controlling for\u201D\u2014yes, you can have the certainty that the member just spoke to, about a controlled activity; that it will be granted\u2014\u201Cbut you also need to do these various different steps.\u201D Why not just call it a controlled activity? Is it, in fact, just a political sloganeering statement to make to different lobby groups?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022db223f0b20d060bcb8050419c8c3fa1b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022db223f0b20d060bcb8050419c8c3fa1b\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (10:36)\u003C/span\u003E: I reject the assertion in the member the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s question. The purpose of this reform is to reduce the number of activities that need consents. When it comes to this bill, the Planning Bill, we\u2019re intending, by providing for registered permitted activities in limited cases\u2014and only if allowed or required by a national standard\u2014to reduce the number of low-risk consents that are needed. This is intentional, and it\u2019s going to have a very significant benefit. We intend that the number of consents that are required are reduced by up to 46 percent. Now, that\u2019s just for starters, and this is one way to do it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EFor the member\u2019s benefit, and for those listening and watching, registration is a checklist exercise; it does not require an assessment. It will simply provide for identifying where certain types of activities are happening, but only once national policy direction clarifies the direction\u2014how the legislation is to be implemented\u2014and national standards provide for that once the development of that standard has established a need for it. It\u2019s quite some way down the track.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u002257197de5f53b5453045a485ed038233f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002257197de5f53b5453045a485ed038233f\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (10:37)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll move on to Subpart 4, I think, and that is \u201CNational instruments\u201D. These are very important because so much of this bill turns on what is in the national instruments, and so much of the ministerial power that we\u2019ve talked about leading up to this committee stage goes to decision making in these national instruments. It has been described to me like a spinning top. Whilst the Government members talk about a funnel, you can also look at it like a spinning top: you have all this weight at the top, which the Minister decides in the national direction, and then that flows down. But, if something goes wrong, the spinning top will fall over, so it\u2019s really important that we consider how it is that these national instruments are made.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAt the moment, there are not very many constraints or processes required for the making of the national direction, and it does end up with the Minister determining conflicts\u2014the Minister is the person making the national instruments\u2014between the goals. We\u2019ve looked at the goals before, within the Planning Act, and I do note that at page 69 of Amendment Paper 709 there is a new definition of conflict and what conflict means. Included in the meaning of conflict, at paragraph (b), is \u201Cconflict between the goals in section 11 of this Act and the goals in section 11 of the Natural Environment Act 2025;\u201D. I note that it\u2019s a new institution, and it\u2019s certainly something that the select committee advised needed to happen. The member might want to comment on that interaction between the two sets of goals and how they are different. The member, again, might want to go through and say whether there are other substantive policy changes in the Amendment Paper or whether there are more clarifications. I note there is quite a lot in there about national standards and the content of national standards. I have an Amendment Paper 751. This is a published Amendment Paper, and what 751 does is it requires a board of inquiry process for national policy direction. I have based the Amendment Paper, which is quite a large one, on the board of inquiry process that would have been used for the national planning framework within the Natural and Built Environment Act, now repealed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI would like the members\u2019 discussion to consider this and having the safeguard of a board of inquiry process. This is something that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has been calling for, in particular, and it should give the Minister some cover against judicial review in cases that will go to the Minister\u2019s discretion and ask what was considered. If the Minister can say, \u201CI put it to the board of inquiry and they heard submissions and they made their decisions.\u201D, then that gives the Minister a lot of cover. It goes to the efficiency of the process and is surely something that this Government should be interested in. Plus, it goes to the community input into the process of these national instruments and the trade-offs that the member was earlier speaking about. So much of this new system relies on the national instruments that there should be a robust process for the creation of those instruments and the ability to challenge them. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00224b894910b3424b3a68eb099fb9710c22\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224b894910b3424b3a68eb099fb9710c22\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (10:42)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Quite a lot in that, and I appreciate that the making of national instruments is fundamental to the implementation and operation of this new system. Just to come back to considerations for national policy direction, the member has raised the matter of whether a board of inquiry would be better placed, as she proposes in her Amendment Paper, to consider national policy direction. The Government disagrees. The considerations of the process to be followed are set out in clauses 58 and 59 for the national standards. Let\u2019s be clear, the national instruments do not replace the framework set by Parliament, but what they do is they seek to achieve compatibility between the goals as far as practical, and when the Minister is developing the proposed national policy direction, that is what the Minister will be required to do. If compatibility between the goals, whether it\u2019s in the Planning Bill or the Natural Environment Bill\u2014or the Acts we intend they become\u2014can\u2019t be achieved, then identifying and providing for the resolution of conflicts between the goals or within a goal is required to be considered by the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe also accept that national policy direction is not required to identify and provide for the resolution of every conflict. There will still be a role for standards further down the system to identify how activities are managed to an acceptable level, because we still need to carry out activities in the natural environment\u2014for example, like installing stormwater culverts, building bridges, and clearing gravel from rivers. All of these things require us to manage the conflict between human needs, the need to protect our infrastructure, operate in the environment, and to operate around people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo there will be a role for national standards, spatial plans\u2014the rules and plans\u2014to manage conflict. Much further down the funnel\u2014which is the Government\u2019s intended way to approach it and for those who operate in the system to see it, rather than the spinning top the member alluded to\u2014right at the bottom, there\u2019s still going to be the opportunity for consents to manage effects on people and property. That\u2019s how it\u2019s intended to work, and it\u2019s set out very clearly in the legislation what matters need to be considered for national policy direction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022 data-id=\u00229ae565bc5d81f9bb83860afa98afce2f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229ae565bc5d81f9bb83860afa98afce2f\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B) (10:45)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. A question for the Minister in relation to the provisions under clause 52 in the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper 738 that inserts the following phrase: \u201C(6B) National standards may include requirements relating to the performance or exercise of the functions, powers, and duties of the statutory officer appointed under section 188A\u201D. So this has to do with the land market officer. My question is about the desired independence of the land market officer, and really my question is: why does the new clause touch on every function, power, and duty of the officer rather than being confined to, for example, procedural, administrative, or notification requirements? We share, I think, the Minister\u2019s desire that the land market officer operates within their mandate and can\u2019t be, basically, bossed around or manipulated by the Minister of the day. It seems that this clause would, basically, give the Minister of the day that ability to not just direct through the national standard those kind of administrative or procedural matters but, actually, it touches on all of the kinds of factors. I suppose another way to ask the question is: can that national standard, in this case, prescribe the officers, for example, the economic methodology that they use, the thresholds, or the substantive analytical approach? Because if that\u2019s the case, it doesn\u2019t seem like a good idea to me, and I\u2019d be surprised if the Minister was supporting a provision that would risk really undermining the necessary independence of the land market officer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022706810d76b06f64ae0d3c70db9e941f4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022706810d76b06f64ae0d3c70db9e941f4\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (10:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair, and I do appreciate the member the Hon Phil Twyford\u2019s long-term commitment to urban development and intensification, particularly in Te Atat\u016B Peninsula where we both live. We have experienced both the benefits and the dis-benefits of urban intensification.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe intention of providing for national standards to include requirements relating to the performance or the exercise of functions, powers, and duties of the statutory officer appointed under section 188A is really around how national standards can set expectations around the standards for data collection and the way that that data can be managed, and methodologies. The purpose of national standards is to make sure that everywhere around the country where an activity is undertaken\u2014in this case, the activities of the statutory officer\u2014they\u2019re undertaken in a consistent way. The planners and decision makers can make sense of the information and then respond in a consistent way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227d19573a8ba4d8283b17374978c8ea2\u0022 data-id=\u002287ee9fd2510d73d4cb5e6517ec08ce69\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227d19573a8ba4d8283b17374978c8ea2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002287ee9fd2510d73d4cb5e6517ec08ce69\u0022\u003EGRANT McCALLUM (National\u2014Northland) (10:49)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b8c9867efa58462abd609280d479649\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s a bit early I think, Mr McCallum.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022dbe56c36c6b2f2d0d4507d5d68853e60\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dbe56c36c6b2f2d0d4507d5d68853e60\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (10:49)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll make the questions very brief, Madam Chair. Firstly, to new subclause 45(2). I just want to ask the Minister a question around whether directions under the new formulation in the new amended version also includes ministerial directions. Are there new directions? Is that why this is here? If so, are there also meant to be directions\u2014not in the natural meaning of the word but in this section\u2014which apply to directives that are given by the statutory officer? Does it also then apply to directions that are given by a panel exercising the ministerial powers that are delegated to it by the Minister? That\u2019s the first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second brief question is\u2014under new clause 51, on page 71, the reformation of the new subclause (1)(f), I want to ask whether this was changed, because it is now more explicit that national rules should set the scope of public consultation, and the consultation scope. The member in the chair will understand that I\u2019m asking this because there are also consultation requirements which exist outside of the funnel in relation to, say, M\u0101ori rights and interests. But is it intended that\u2014because the national rules are not primary legislation; they\u2019re secondary legislation\u2014it is not Parliament\u2019s intention to delegate a function which would seek to exclude those duties which exist both in common law and in our constitutional arrangements? Actually, I\u2019ll leave that there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also wanted to ask the Minister, in relation to the new statutory officer functions and the way that that will interplay with the national standards, whether the statutory officer, under new clause 52(3B) and (3C) in Amendment Paper 709, will also be able to have an influence over the way that local authorities maybe are required to exclude a rule from a plan, and, in the normal way that you\u2019d read that, the statutory officer doesn\u2019t seem to have that power in the order of precedence. But if my reading of directions, under clause 45 in Amendment Paper 709 is right, then I think the statutory officer might have a role there, and particularly around that restricting a local authority from including the rule in its new plan at (3)(b). Does it mean that\u2019s only in relation to the statutory officer\u2019s functions or does it apply more generally to that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022b1b070b69f6b928c3faf63f3f7484cbc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b1b070b69f6b928c3faf63f3f7484cbc\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (10:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the member Arena Williams\u2019 questions\u2014there were quite a few in there, so I will attempt to answer them in the order that they were asked.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI understand that the member had a question around clause 45(2) in Amendment Paper 709, which relates to \u201CLocal authority and spatial plan committee must implement national instrument\u201D. Have I got that correct?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002273f34d0b75107518dab1ed27c28256b7\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: The directives, yeah.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220743798016f5e45316edd35b0df7e856\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: And (2) is \u201CIn this section, directions includes any directives or other requirements.\u201D Look, I\u2019ll just come back to the overriding approach we\u2019re taking, that, as far as practical, in terms of the scope of this legislation and the Government\u2019s policy intent, we intend to standardise the way that local authorities carry out their functions and duties and exercise their powers under this legislation. So that may well include directions including any directives or other requirements relating to the making of plans, for example. That is entirely intentional, but because the legislation has not passed yet, we\u2019ve been able to release an illustrative national policy direction, which I urge you and other members interested in this legislation to go and have a look at, which sets out the direction of travel, the themes that will be provided for, and, under each theme, the standards that we intend to be applied in each theme or activity or domain. That is TBD. That is what that clause provides for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of your question around \u201CCan the statutory officer tell councils what to do?\u201D\u2014no, they will be able to provide a determination as to whether there is any restriction on a competitive urban land market and provide information for councils to respond to, but it\u2019s not intended the statutory officer has the same power as a Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnother question that the member asked\u2014and, forgive me, I\u2019m actually struggling to recall what specific clause that related to the consultation scope set out in standards. Can the member just enlighten me with what clause that was?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222db850bd1618acbd41eda89cb2c5c404\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Clause 51(1), new paragraph (f).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ac795fe1d009e0986b94e86bcd2db47f\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: Clause 51(1), new paragraph (f)\u2014\u201Crequire or preclude targeted or public notification of an application for a planning consent for an activity:\u201D Again, the intent is that we standardise, as far as practical, avoiding bespoke approaches in different parts of the country\u2014you know, 67 towns and cities, 14 regional councils\u2014to provide standardised methods for matters like consultation. However, that does not preclude consultation with M\u0101ori, which I understand the question was referring to, as provided for in Treaty settlements where there might be specific relationships with the rohe or a council, and, of course, in the intended iwi participation agreements. Thank you, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002289e148275e87e68d0c114e8f870d6fd0\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Scott Willis\u2014Steve Abel.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u00222b5d7b11b184de63ef299678445d7de4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222b5d7b11b184de63ef299678445d7de4\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (10:55)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll take that, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222237aa22b73358581efff8e2ef10e562\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: So sorry, my apologies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229d94ce9c29742d142d2156ded21b4c9b\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s OK. I\u2019m not as handsome as Scott Willis.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002215c60eec0a8d58ed9d43663cb47809c1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I beg to differ!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ee51ca16f93fa9fde547cbf7a2ce3925\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, that\u2019s very kind\u2014you\u2019re entirely forgiven.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve got a very narrow and specific tabled amendment to clause 49, around national standards. Initially, I thought this was a somewhat inelegant way of dealing with this problem. We didn\u2019t have an opportunity earlier on in the bill because we moved on. It\u2019s reflecting on the points that the Minister has already made about his intention as articulated in the legislation that the only means for trees to be protected in urban areas is through recognition of their heritage value\u2014that means their amenity, biodiversity, and other values that they offer are not recognised, only heritage value. The consequence of that is, I fear, that he and the other Minister involved, Mr Bishop, will fail in their objective, which I take at its face value to be genuine, that this legislation is designed to improve and enhance the quality of the living spaces in our urban environments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy proposal is that under the national standards, additional to clause 49, that after the word \u201Cstandards\u201D insert \u201Cincluding a national standard providing for urban tree and urban tree canopy protection.\u201D Now, it\u2019s a very simple broad requirement that is non-prescriptive, other than that it does set a standard. It\u2019s a minor specific thing in one sense, legislatively, but it has a significant consequence nationwide because it recognises the huge value that trees bring to making our cities livable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll give you one specific example before finishing, Madam Chair. Trees, particularly large mature trees, are like giant outdoor air-conditioning systems. Because of the phenomenon\u2014the extraordinary natural phenomena\u2014of transpiration they cause an incredible localised cooling effect. That is but one of the many huge amenity values that they represent and why this amendment should be accepted by the Minister. I wonder if he can respond to that, please.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00229dc3a7a79dc510b248945c7ffa1d3868\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229dc3a7a79dc510b248945c7ffa1d3868\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (10:58)\u003C/span\u003E: Firstly, I accept that the member Steve Abel would know what the air conditioning in a tree is like, because he spent over 240 days occupying a tree in New Lynn in West Auckland, stopping a housing development, where there are still no new houses!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut, no, we won\u2019t be adding a qualifier to clause 49, \u201CNational standards\u201D, \u201CThere must always be national standards.\u201D, because the intention is that the content of national standards is set out in new clause 50A in Amendment Paper 709, and that we do not intend to be overly prescriptive in the legislation, the purpose of the legislation has a framework, and that the content of those standards can be developed further down the track. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do urge the member to get a copy of the national policy direction (NPD). The illustrative NPD that was put out for consultation yesterday morning at 9.15 sets out very clearly the themes and the approaches to resolving conflicts, and the type of directives that this Government intends to apply in the system down the track, and also sets out under each theme, the standards that are intended to be applied under each of those themes. So I urge the member to do that. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u00226170277a3769e34f5386997632abb548\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226170277a3769e34f5386997632abb548\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (10:59)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I am taking a call on clause 58 and the changes at the bottom of page 77 and also clause 62A, which I think are linked. I want to ask the member in the chair, Simon Court, about the new insertions, and then at the bottom of that page, how the conflict provisions are then meant to be interpreted by the Minister?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHe\u2019s created a new provision here which is a new thing in the Amendment Paper. When the Minister sees and must now be satisfied that the national planning instruments, which are the secondary legislation, might be in conflict with each other\u2014these are the national directions for the natural environment and the national directions set for planning. The Minister must now be satisfied that he first appreciates the conflict\u2014that is a legislative requirement\u2014and has considered it and presumably must take advice on it for there to be evidence of that consideration. Then it steps out for him, at the primary legislative level, how he is meant to appreciate that conflict and not necessarily resolve it. I want to ask the member in the chair first, that seems to be an opening for the courts rightly to interpret, in any given context, whether the Minister has done that\u2014not that he\u2019s resolved it but whether he has turned his mind to the conflict.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen there are other powers like the ones at clause 62 and 62A which help a Minister to intervene in a plan once it has been made. Really the question is, firstly, is that the right interpretation of it? Are the courts now allowed to consider whether the Minister has turned his mind to the conflict at the secondary legislation level? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen secondly, shouldn\u2019t we have included in clause 62 and 62A the corresponding check that if the Minister does turn his mind to a conflict and does want to resolve a conflict that he or she has the power to be able to make a change at the last minute? Neither clause 62 or 62A gives us that power to resolve conflicts. The Minister has the power to resolve issues which are minor at clause 62. Then the Minister also has a power to make a change which is more fulsome, but only in relation to those two things like national standards and standards of accreditation or international obligations, but not something which is anticipated by the other plan that\u2019s in conflict with it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022c2d2eb956a410eb4635dbcdc81356472\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c2d2eb956a410eb4635dbcdc81356472\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (11:02)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for the question. Look, in terms of consideration for the national policy direction, clause 58(3A) is quite clear. The Minister must be satisfied that the proposed national policy direction is consistent with other national instruments, as far as practical\u2014I\u2019ve highlighted that in my copy on the desk here. Then looking down to clause 58(3C), the Minister must have regard to achieving compatibility as far as is practical, and in clause 58(3C)(b), identify and provide for resolution for conflict between goals if compatibility between them cannot be achieved.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe are taking a pragmatic and practical approach to the way that the legislation is implemented through national policy direction and through standards. If we try to imagine that we can make this perfect, we can anticipate every potential conflict, right down to individual property owner level, we would never deliver a framework for the enjoyment of property and for all of those other goals to be achieved in the place and at the time where they need to be prioritised, either through national standards, through spatial plans, through rules and plans, and by decision makers. We\u2019re very intentional.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere was another question around the amendments to national policy direction without full process. In clause 62, it\u2019s quite clear that any amendments that a Minister might need to make to national policy direction in the context of that clause are for changes that are no more than minor or to correct errors or to make similar technical alterations throughout the document.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn clause 62A, \u201CAmendments to national standards without full process\u201D, there are some very limited reasons provided there, which, as the member mentioned, are to implement New Zealand\u2019s obligations under an international treaty, for example; to align with a New Zealand standard; or to extend the time frame for implementing any part of a national standard. There are some very limited matters where the Minister may recommend the making of an amendment to a national standard without going through the full consideration process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022443f23de4cbd464f91833e6c466c98c0\u0022 data-id=\u002244bb75ea91a18ff5e33a6383d95795c6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022443f23de4cbd464f91833e6c466c98c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002244bb75ea91a18ff5e33a6383d95795c6\u0022\u003ETODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (11:05)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229276cfa72cd4c3df5b24438ee9386271\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019ve still got quite a way to go, I think\u2014well, not a long way to go, because we are nearing the end. I am inviting further new material.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022529f601c01ca2c5986332b3c9d9f4e62\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022529f601c01ca2c5986332b3c9d9f4e62\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (11:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Actually, I do not have very much more on Part 2, but I have one Amendment Paper that I haven\u2019t spoken to during this Part 2 debate. That was tabled on 25 August at 5.35.01. Unfortunately, it\u2019s not a published amendment, but what it does is it brings in the provisions for Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe from the Resource Management Act into this part of the bill, which is obviously a different policy position from the Government. But I\u2019m just wondering if the member in the chair, Simon Court, would consider that and also he might want to comment on what part of Part 2 it would be best in. Oh, he\u2019s shaking his head.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fb1de81f5e9e4838cee361d350889736\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m just trying to relate it to a clause in Part 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002268bf64e6bfa45f8028f2c72f91bf22cb\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: In Part 2? Well, I would have put it in a new clause, in 15B. It had a whole lot of definitions that had gone through from new clause 15B to new clause 15P. Anyway, Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe have contributed to an efficient system and I think it is abysmal that this Government has gone back on what was reported back from the Environment Committee, which continued with these documents that could still work under the system that will still continue to be in force until at least 2030. Any argument that Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe somehow don\u2019t fit with this new legislation doesn\u2019t make any sense at all. The member might want to try and explain how it can make sense and how it is not just another example of a slogan that he can use.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022a3fd390c76a53371d20dd36a54429926\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a3fd390c76a53371d20dd36a54429926\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (11:07)\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister was very clear when he responded to questions last night on Part 1 why Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe arrangements are no longer appropriate in the context of this legislation. We are providing for iwi participation agreements which can be made in context of the scope of the new legislation. Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe arrangements come from the Resource Management Act. They will end when this legislation passes through all stages and achieves Royal assent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u00225e96d11f3a5468a7f4a6fe915a6c3abf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225e96d11f3a5468a7f4a6fe915a6c3abf\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (11:08)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just following on from that question, I\u2019m at clause 59(3). It\u2019s a new insertion that is the converse power but for the secondary legislation of clause 10(2), but it applies differently here because the national standards are secondary legislation, so we\u2019ve got decision makers here who are not the Minister. This is about giving effect to Treaty settlements that have been arranged with the Crown and that Parliament intended with its full chest to give effect to. How can that be right what he has just answered in relation to my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s question, when, now, he has included a provision which does recognise that those arrangements were made under the Resource Management Act and has deliberately created this clause, which is meant to give equivalency, and yet still argue that those agreements, the Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe agreements, don\u2019t have a place in this regime when that is sort of a having it both ways clause here? We do have, actually, those settlements that are made with iwi. They are meant to be given effect to, even at the secondary legislation level, even at the national plan level, as if they were still being implemented under the Resource Management Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002284323e2b937297111acb1a3e23308a78\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002284323e2b937297111acb1a3e23308a78\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (11:10)\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister covered this extensively in his responses to questions around clause 10 last night, but I\u2019ll reiterate that the Government is committed to upholding Treaty settlements, and where those settlements have provisions in them which relate to the Resource Management Act (RMA), \u201Cto the greatest extent possible under this Act, give an effect that is the same as, or equivalent to, the effect that the [relevant] redress \u2026 arrangement\u201D had under the RMA. It couldn\u2019t be more clear in clause 10; couldn\u2019t be more clear here. That\u2019s the intention of this Government, and we hope that Parliament agrees with us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022 data-id=\u0022b6c052f3538eeccdfb1b679bb9149663\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b6c052f3538eeccdfb1b679bb9149663\u0022\u003ETAMATHA PAUL (Green\u2014Wellington Central) (11:10)\u003C/span\u003E: This is a call in response to that answer. The Minister can\u2019t keep referring to clause 10 and the answers given last night by the Minister, because iwi M\u0101ori interests and participation are not exclusive to clause 10. In fact, there are provisions that provide for M\u0101ori participation in national planning instruments, policy direction, spatial plans\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ad707ec57ec34946663002c558598529\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Excuse me, member, we are not\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002208a02e28c8f3829f23e83c6c3fc0e12c\u0022\u003ETAMATHA PAUL\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014rules, standards\u2014it\u2019s throughout the entire bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c19c1de7bfdf8e1ee70832c7fd79d12c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: We are not revisiting clause 10.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f930b419312670066e72c8e300e8df9f\u0022\u003ETAMATHA PAUL\u003C/span\u003E: But what I\u2019m trying to explain to you, Madam Chair, is that M\u0101ori participation and interests are throughout the entire bill, even in this part that we\u2019re in right now in the standards\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cc94ff290333408be1105ccfdcf085cf\u0022\u003ESimon Court\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019ve covered it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223c5b01e11c7b6e5c377ae5aa0528ee22\u0022\u003ETAMATHA PAUL\u003C/span\u003E: No, I will argue this point because M\u0101ori interests are provided for in various parts including this bill. So we have a right to say if the mechanism by which that is executed under the Resource Management Act was Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe, and then the Minister is telling us that it is an iwi participation agreement\u2014we have a right to try to distinguish and ascertain what that looks like. We can\u2019t just take it as the councils will engage with iwi, because what does that mean? The reasons that Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe and other participation tools and arrangements have been enshrined in legislation is because councils have not done that, historically. They have made decisions on behalf of M\u0101ori land and land that M\u0101ori have rights and interests in, and have not been consistent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019m asking the Chair and the Minister to consider that these interests go right throughout the bill, and every time there\u2019s a question about M\u0101ori interests we can\u2019t just say, \u201CThat was answered last night.\u201D, because it\u2019s pertinent throughout the bill on every single instrument that is in this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00224cd7d34a275a54eae91d3dd5d00a5991\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224cd7d34a275a54eae91d3dd5d00a5991\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (11:12)\u003C/span\u003E: For the benefit of the member, the legislation provides for\u2014and we\u2019re talking about clause 59(3)\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aeb7b19410f11b7b959f1184ef2f1d65\u0022\u003ETamatha Paul\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019re talking about tools and instruments that come underneath the bill\u2014I know what we\u2019re talking about; I have a degree in it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f5b893ac9e4671943d98c56682db757\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: If the member wishes to ask another question, that\u2019s fine, but I\u2019m going to respond to the question that the member asked. This clause provides for, to the greatest extent possible, \u201Cto give \u2026 effect [to] the same as, or equivalent to\u201D. But let\u2019s be clear, Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe arrangements do not meet the scope of this new legislation, and the Government has said that there will be provision for iwi participation through an iwi participation agreement. That\u2019s clear. We\u2019re not relitigating the policy. The member may wish to point this out during the course of debate on the legislation over the next few days. That\u2019s fine. You continue to point it out, and the Minister or I will continue to point out we\u2019ve made provision for it. So at a certain point, you know, maybe that will sink in and the member will understand that we\u2019ve made provision for it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f99a45f50742a27056b254384162f6a3\u0022\u003ETamatha Paul\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019re asking what that looks like, but you can\u2019t answer that question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b9767bd632fe48b8a698cb981d51d0f5\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: Well, there was no question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222a2f4caafe1aea575f0b3ab37f563554\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, the debate doesn\u2019t happen across the Chamber. I\u2019m going to take one more call. Hon Julie Anne Genter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022 data-id=\u0022cec80d06dcc253cffc08cc007031d2bd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cec80d06dcc253cffc08cc007031d2bd\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green\u2014Rongotai) (11:13)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually just wanted to clarify, because there is some reference to Schedule 3 in Part 2\u2014I have some amendments to Schedule 3, but Schedule 3 is also referenced in Part 3. When is the appropriate time to speak to amendments on Schedule 3? Are we doing that now or in the next part of the debate?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022899e3b7b8ff119bdc1b4ca03c9b73a5f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: It is the next part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a992208ea61ec002475e5c1c215c8027\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER\u003C/span\u003E: The next part? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227d19573a8ba4d8283b17374978c8ea2\u0022 data-id=\u002237fbd0d0017500299b3134ae2851a446\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227d19573a8ba4d8283b17374978c8ea2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002237fbd0d0017500299b3134ae2851a446\u0022\u003EGRANT McCALLUM (National\u2014Northland) (11:14)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the debate on this question now close.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022caaac981915233613f732a848420e448\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 709 amending clauses 47 and 52 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments to the amendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002208dee03d7fa997b9686412843e44d3d9\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter\u2019s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709 amending clause 11(1)(a) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022954919948e0d6b079f0f91544f459914\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter\u2019s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709 amending clause 11(1)(b) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d198ec5ffb726f651e376d05cd9bbad9\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter\u2019s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709 amending clause 11(1)(c) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cef45f9fb41d89623708927003d5917b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter\u2019s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709 amending clause 11(1)(d) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226d3e63409b43b104d292b5ac08877c09\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter\u2019s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709 amending clause 11(1)(e) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002233fd01828f271dc030d8f3105a2ef351\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter\u2019s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709 inserting clause 11(1)(ga) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229b99449135834d3276529cbce9bf1cc5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Oriini Kaipara\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 11(1)(f) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002244033e3085d3a176d5ef44a641a2b9f3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Oriini Kaipara\u2019s tabled amendments to clauses 11, 12, and 13 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de7123101ddae5af4e6589dca2d01061\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709 inserting clauses 15B to 15P be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002203ac22aa85bff652a44020028457a702\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendments to clauses 57 to 62A in Amendment Paper 709 set out on Amendment Paper 751 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments to the amendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d322b92bcea6e8617a88d348e38c93e8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 709 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e8cecf5c577a2fcb0f9a96d2b9a3b3bd\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendments to clause 11 set out on Amendment Paper 694 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee of the whole House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETamatha Paul\u2019s amendment to clause 11(1) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee of the whole House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendment to clause 11 set out on Amendment Paper 743 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228838def6a89f9572d7c0eea77f85eb6d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, Steve Abel\u2019s three tabled amendments to Part 2 relating to protection of urban trees and urban tree canopy lend themselves to being grouped. I will put a single question on them unless members indicate that they wish to vote differently on a specific amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Steve Abel\u2019s tabled amendments inserting clause 11(1)(ca) and 14(2)(f) and amending clause 49 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222f1b49de91ac3edf0c28dae3c351c7e8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Tamatha Paul\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 11(1)(i) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002255c33501c3d5a3bddb804d0d97a843fd\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Tamatha Paul\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 11(1)(i)(i) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226041ee320a5a1affb3faefd8f3154525\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Tamatha Paul\u2019s tabled amendment replacing clause 11(1)(i)(ii) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224bb9aabc923375867e0691633cc08df6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendment to clause 12 set out on Amendment Paper 707 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022857d156e32d95c3a8a63f7a7fdebeb75\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendment to clause 13 set out on Amendment Paper 701 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227ce0b6eb2aabfaddac8c0f78ac198de2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Tamatha Paul\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 13(1) inserting paragraph (g) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022256a4cb43c6050eeb6aa775a08a08b40\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendments to clause 14 set out on Amendment Paper 697 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ee9910ea2147fc3531eba667ef90cd28\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s amendments to clause 14 set out on Amendment Paper 749 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fb4cfa4606c7494fca1a0be20a3aa2ec\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 14(2) inserting paragraph (f) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022feeb4eb9da93ec94f7fa5b3cb845ab27\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Lan Pham\u2019s amendment to clause 15A set out on Amendment Paper 732 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendment to clause 15A set out on Amendment Paper 696 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a48f412607a3fa0ad992e8cd313938fc\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Tamatha Paul\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 15A inserting paragraph (ba) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225d56194dac3b95a292d3991a4b3d3bae\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Tamatha Paul\u2019s amendment to clause 25 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendment to clause 31 set out on Amendment Paper 708 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Part 2 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001530\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002217a0644cc7adbd8113eccf53b9f52f8b\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u00222f08ae20ad01d648c03fd191be912759\u0022\u003EPart 3 Combined plan, and Schedules 2 to 5\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f26cdd43739626b07ded1fe5913bd2d6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: We come now to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 63 to 106, \u201CCombined plan\u201D, including Schedule 2, \u201CRegional spatial plans\u201D; Schedule 3, \u201CFurther provisions relating to plans\u201D; Schedule 4, \u201CIndependent hearings panels\u201D; and Schedule 5, \u201CDesignations\u201D. The question is that Part 3 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00228221cacdd976509d9e242f5e1a1936e4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228221cacdd976509d9e242f5e1a1936e4\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (11:42)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. This is another very important part. All of it\u2019s important, but we will get to regulatory relief in this part, which has been very controversial. As you\u2019ve just noted, there are Schedules 2, 3, 4, and 5 as well, so I propose to go through Part 3 and then move into the schedules.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy first question is in relation to an Amendment Paper I have. That is Amendment Paper 740, and it is to clause 63C. This is about the purpose of a regional spatial plan. I\u2019ve mentioned, in some other parts of the bill, the importance of integrated management, and the regional spatial plan seems to be somewhere we could add to this. Suggested Amendment Paper 740 is to insert, at the end of clause 63C, after \u201Clonger\u201D\u2014which is the last word\u2014\u201Cand support integrated management of the region\u2019s natural and physical resources\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is important, as I said, for trying to link these two different bills as one mechanism that might be able to do it, so I\u2019d be interested in the member Simon Court\u2019s view on that. I might leave it there, and then I\u2019ve got more questions on clause 67B.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022b3b79bced33e4e1d809b7d2c919d2afa\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b3b79bced33e4e1d809b7d2c919d2afa\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (11:44)\u003C/span\u003E: The purpose of having two distinct pieces of legislation\u2014the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill, which we intend to become law\u2014is so that effects are managed in the right place and each piece of legislation has different goals. It is not our intention to integrate. I will not be accepting the member the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s proposed amendment to the purpose of spatial plans.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs pointed out in the debate on the previous part, there will be conflicts between the goals. The purpose of national policy direction is to identify the Government\u2019s priorities and how some of those goals, where they conflict, can be prioritised over others. In a regional spatial plan, the intention is that when it comes to looking at a geographic area of a region, where important matters like identifying natural hazards and showing them on a plan so that other activities that might be at risk of a natural hazard can be avoided in that area, or at least specific provision be made for them\u2014that is the purpose of a regional spatial plan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe do not intend to weave together and reintegrate the two pieces of legislation. We want the resolution of conflicts between goals to be clear and transparent. We do not want them to be muddied and muddled and cause years of litigation and cause uncertainty for those who seek to plan and those who seek to develop and those who seek to live in New Zealand. We will not be accepting the member\u2019s amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u002296778ca26aaab515456c63cbf2b391be\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002296778ca26aaab515456c63cbf2b391be\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (11:46)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Quickly responding to the member Simon Court\u2019s comment there, unfortunately, I think what he has done with these bills and these goals is totally muddy the waters, literally and figuratively, and there will be a whole lot of litigation around the conflicts in those goals, and it\u2019s very dangerous to have it all rest on one person, being the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnyway, moving on, I\u2019ve got an Amendment Paper to clause 67B, which is \u201CCore obligations when preparing and deciding regional spatial plan\u201D, and I note other members also have amendments on this. One of them is my Amendment Paper 692, and that would, after clause 67B(2)\u2014subclause (2) is \u201CA regional spatial plan must\u2014(a) map or otherwise record the broad spatial layout of the region over the next 30 years \u2026 including\u201D\u2014after the list there, insert \u201C(v) blue and green natural environment networks or corridors; and (vi) environmental enhancement areas; and (vii) preferred urban form outcomes (for example, greenfield areas and intensification areas); and\u201D. That is important for the spatial plans to actually do some planning and identify how this green infrastructure that we\u2019ve talked a bit about over the past parts of this bill is going to be planned for. The spatial regional plans are at that higher level. They seem to be a good place to put that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also have one other Amendment Paper that I\u2019ll mentioned now, which is also on this wider clause, and that is Amendment Paper 741. It relates to the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 and the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008. That is, again, clause 67B. After subclause (3)(c), insert\u2014subclause (3) is \u201CA regional spatial plan must\u201D\u2014\u201C(d) not conflict with sections 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Part Act 2000; and (e) give effect to the purpose and objectives of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008.\u201D Again, these are pieces of legislation that I am sure other members will want to comment on as well. They are very important, as I understand it, to those communities in Auckland, and with the regulatory relief that we\u2019ll get to, coming up, people are very worried that there will be no protections over those areas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne method is to try to include them\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EPhone rings\u003C/span\u003E] There\u2019s an Auckland member next to me who\u2019s excited by this! That relates back to this existing legislation and these existing protections for these very important areas, so that they are not undermined by this piece of legislation, where it definitely does not say on the tin that they are going to be undermined. I am interested in the member\u2019s thoughts on those two changes, as well. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u00225d741822486eb3878b0b3f072aac81fd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225d741822486eb3878b0b3f072aac81fd\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (11:50)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019ll directly pick up on what my colleague Rachel Brooking has just been speaking of and expand on it, in terms of the line of questioning. I also have an amendment that specifically refers to the Wait\u0101kere Ranges heritage area, amending clause 63C that the purpose of a regional spatial plan is also to recognise and give effect to the purpose and objectives of the Wait\u0101kere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008, where a regional spatial plan applied to land within the heritage area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy question, really, specifically to the Minister is: the Wait\u0101kere Ranges Heritage Area Act is an excellent example of a spatial plan. It\u2019s where the community, over the course of years and decades, has come together in agreement about how the biodiversity values, the landscape values, the exquisite natural values of that part of West Auckland should be protected and preserved from the intrusions and risks of urban sprawl. That\u2019s exactly what the Wait\u0101kere Ranges Heritage Area Act was designed to do. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s a model example of spatial planning and, in considering an amendment to explicitly place this existing legislation into this section of the law around spatial planning, I wonder if the Minister can reflect on the fact that we are all pretty much in agreement on this principle of spatial planning and the nuances of how you do it, but to strike out or to not give correct credence to this particular example in the Wait\u0101kere Ranges heritage protection area is to do a great harm to an existing community consensus which is that those of us\u2014I happen to be one of the people that lives in the foothills of the Wait\u0101kere, not in that sort of abstract peninsula that you call West Auckland, of Te Atat\u016B, which is in fact the peninsula into the East Harbour, the Waitemat\u0101. Don\u2019t know how you can really be called a West Aucklander living in Te Atat\u016B Peninsula, Phil Twyford and\u2014 \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022731a57eade82b518b501ecba9e9aa1eb\u0022\u003EOriini Kaipara\u003C/span\u003E: And me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228bcf6a6d9fd34496a228e41f0dad18f2\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014Minister Court and Oriini Kaipara. I\u2019m offending everybody now. I just want to be clear \u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002295e8fa62ba7d6a45e9001a84079ba5cc\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Par for the course.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223d7a164bcf4b12ab8cf86ae59d4f3544\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014to make the point, Mr Chair: people have moved to the Wait\u0101kere Ranges knowing it has a particular spatial planning and protection status. If that is forfeited and got rid of, we will see an intrusion and a death by a thousand cuts of what is commonly referred to as the lungs of Auckland. As you arrive by air over the West part of Auckland, you see a vast, verdant swathe of regenerating native forest. It is a spectacular part of the character of Auckland and I want certainty from the Minister that that Wait\u0101kere Ranges Heritage Area Act, which covers 27,000 hectares of land, will be retained but, also, that you will put by amendment into this appropriate section of the bill under spatial planning.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022e20c6a3be246347fd909c02ae1cefbc6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e20c6a3be246347fd909c02ae1cefbc6\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (11:53)\u003C/span\u003E: To just respond to the questions from Hon Rachel Brooking and Steve Abel about the Hauraki Gulf protection Act and the Wait\u0101kere Ranges heritage Act: the intent is to carry over the existing relationship between those two Acts and the Auckland spatial plan. The Auckland regional spatial plan, as currently written, says that it must not be inconsistent with the Wait\u0101kere Ranges heritage protection Act. If you want to have a look at more detail about those transition arrangements provided for in legislation, you can have a look at Schedule 11, where the relationship, say, with spatial plans\u2014Hauraki Gulf, Wait\u0101kere\u2014is addressed in the consequential changes to those Acts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn terms of Rachel Brooking\u2019s question around adding content into core obligations when preparing or deciding regional spatial plans, the Government\u2019s very clear: we intend to use national policy direction, and national standards to provide more detail about the content required in regional spatial plans. It\u2019s important that spatial plans do not try and cover too many things. That\u2019s why we haven\u2019t included too many things in this list, under 67B(2)because we don\u2019t want preparing spatial plans to dilute their focus on the big questions, and provide clarity and strategic direction; the big question being to set out the key drivers of growth and change in a region because for far too long, planning has been seen as a desktop exercise rather than one that has an objective and an outcome. The Government\u2019s very, very clear in the goals of the Planning Bill and in the matters which a spatial plan much must address: we need to get New Zealand going, we need to unlock New Zealand\u2019s potential, and spatial plans are intended to be a key driver of growth and change in our region.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022 data-id=\u0022656c84460203295accce02e8cc306514\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022656c84460203295accce02e8cc306514\u0022\u003EVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (11:56)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair, I just have some follow-up questions regarding the Wait\u0101kere Ranges Heritage Area Act, because this has been a matter of considerable discussion in my community and, along with Mr Abel, I do reside at the gateway to the ranges. There have been community meetings; local councillors; Sir Bob Harvey, who raised his voice in terms of expressing concern that what he refers to as the lungs of Auckland will be at risk.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe member in the chair\u2014and I see the Minister\u2019s with us now\u2014said that the Planning Bill was expected to be interpreted consistently with the protection Act but we do also have clause 14 in the bill, which we\u2019ve discussed previously, and I gave the member a question on that in relation to discrimination. That\u2019s the clause that sets out the things that will be excluded from consideration, including visual amenities and rural landscapes, except for \u201Coutstanding landscapes\u201D. The Wait\u0101kere Ranges character protections were never framed around outstanding status, as far as I can see. Therefore, there remains a concern and, again, this to me seems to be inviting litigation but I just want the Minister\u2019s confirmation of his view of the interaction between the two Acts and what should happen if there is a community who contests whether a decision made under the Planning Bill, soon to be had, is contrary to the intentions and the protections provided by the Wait\u0101kere Ranges Heritage Area Act? Will a council be obliged to give effect to the Planning Bill as opposed to the heritage areas Act?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnother question is: essentially, why isn\u2019t the Crown providing a fund to protect naturally important environmental features on private land? Is that a signal that the intention is not truly to compensate but rather to prevent councils from protecting such things in the first place? If the Minister himself can confirm his view of the interaction between the two Acts and whether in his view it will always be the case that the protections afforded under the Wait\u0101kere Ranges Heritage Area Act will be given effect to. That would be hugely useful and put many minds at ease. Unfortunately, I don\u2019t believe that the member\u2019s comments earlier were accurate. In part, I don\u2019t believe that because of the statement in the Environment Committee report, which says, \u201COur understanding is that the area could have similar protections as currently.\u201D Not the same, but similar and, in my view, diminished protections. So, again, to the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u00224923ab131624afb3bdda9ca10d32588c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224923ab131624afb3bdda9ca10d32588c\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (11:59)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I think it\u2019s really good to be able to step through these clauses because each one has such significant implications. I want to pick up directly on the previous Minister in the chair\u2019s comments about how key these spatial plans are in terms of key drivers of growth and change in a region. My amendments, which I\u2019d love to hear the Minister\u2019s thoughts on, are related to that specifically, because we know when these first spatial plans, in particular, are put in place, there will not be the associated environmental limits and plans that could inform those spatial plans when it comes to the environment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen we\u2019re talking about key drivers of growth and change, where we can actually develop, where we can actually grow, and the environmental constraints and the environmental quality or degradation, understanding where those areas need to be spatially is critical to that. I have three amendments in here that would actually spell that out. The first is actually providing and planning for in these spatial plans to meet environmental limits and provide that spatial planning to actually meet those and ensure that development is not unduly imposing on them or making things way worse, and then we\u2019re picking up the tab later. Now, I\u2019ve already mentioned the fact that these environmental limits won\u2019t be in place when the first spatial plans come in, so I\u2019m really interested to hear from the Minister how he foresees existing environmental knowledge and spatial awareness and spatial planning could actually inform these first spatial plans.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, the other element of that when it comes to regional spatial plans is my Amendment Paper 716\u2014sorry, the previous ones were 678 and 715. These are about mapping areas of significant indigenous vegetation and fauna. Because we know that the other aspects of the planning system are going to erode and, I guess, threaten biodiversity, this could be a key way where, at a high level, the regional spatial plans are actually providing for those things.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, what I\u2019m also interested in is when it comes to clause 67B, which outlines the core obligations when preparing and deciding these regional spatial plans, what is intended when the language refers to the requirement that spatial plans actually map constraints? So they sort of ask for this generally. And can the Minister please clarify what these constraints actually refer to? Are these specifically significant natural areas, outstanding natural features, and landscapes? That\u2019s what I\u2019d be really keen to understand, because the previous planning bill before we got to this stage did outline that, but now it seems that the clarity about that definition and the specificity of those constraints is actually gone. I\u2019d be really interested to hear the Minister\u2019s responses on all those.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022c00046e0ed5b0e5d033cbd1cfaf9e460\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c00046e0ed5b0e5d033cbd1cfaf9e460\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:03)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll deal with a couple of questions. To Vanushi Walters\u2019 question around the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act\u2014I understand undersecretary Court dealt with this\u2014the point is the regional spatial plan can\u2019t be inconsistent with the Waitakere Act. It is true that the tools in the system to do that are different from the Resource Management Act, obviously, but there are mechanisms in the new legislation so that the regional spatial plan for Auckland is not inconsistent with the Waitakere Act. So, essentially, the intention to port those controls over in a different way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to Lan Pham\u2019s questions, it is not correct that you need to have limits before you can do a regional spatial plan. There\u2019s been a bit of commentary that that\u2019s required\u2014that\u2019s not the Government\u2019s view. There is existing information out there around constraints to do that. The first iteration of spatial plans in the new system will obviously be less perfect than the spatial plans that come over time, because we\u2019re not just building a system for the next five years, but we\u2019re building a system for forever, hopefully. The second round of spatial plans in the system will be better, because at that point you will have a limits-based framework in place and there may well be more granular detail in relation to the second round of spatial plans. It is a little bit like cart before the horse. You\u2019ve got to do something. So the first round doesn\u2019t need limits. There\u2019s existing information out there that councils already have that they will be able to use in relation to spatial plans.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to the question around clause 67B: what do constraints mean? That is a reference to things like natural hazards, for example, lack of infrastructure, some of the other factors that the member mentioned, biodiversity, things like that. We know, for example, that a constraint on development is natural hazards. It\u2019s a key theme of the new system, both in the bills, but also national policy direction as well. My point would be that\u2019s at a kind of watercolour level, rather than at a granular, site-by-site land use plan level. The spatial plan sort of maps in a broad kind of watercolour palette type way that there are natural hazard constraints in a particular area, and then the land use plan and the environment plan are the more detailed, specific mapping of that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u002242699876d80dbc193c525d7c2bcf0ca7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001564\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002242699876d80dbc193c525d7c2bcf0ca7\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (12:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. A quick question on clause 63: now that the Minister\u2019s explained the timing considerations and his new amendment, effectively, knocks out the Resource Management Act (RMA) entirely, I\u2019m just asking whether that\u2019s a requirement or a description of the factual context. At clause 63(1), does that mean that councils are required to, but there\u2019s no punishment if they don\u2019t, have a regional plan at all times, or is it a description in that whatever they have there\u2014whatever it\u2019s labelled\u2014is the plan?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, my substantive question is on page 83 at clause 63(5), which is amending subclause (6). I think we\u2019ve heard the Minister describe the way that in this Part 3, that\u2019s the national planning framework that\u2019s the central government control room for the policy direction setting which is meant to be done at a central government level. This is the part of the bill which gives central government most control at that watercolour level. So these exclusions then add in what no one down the pecking order might see as an interpretation issue in that they\u2019re meant to exclude the rohe moana that are guaranteed to ng\u0101 hap\u016B o Ng\u0101ti Porou in their settlement in 2019.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s a great thing\u2014it\u2019s a great thing to see this exclusion here\u2014but I want to ask him whether we\u2019re also porting the controls over, as he frames it, from other Acts which didn\u2019t begin interacting with the RMA; they began a lot earlier than that. Ng\u0101 hap\u016B o Ng\u0101ti Porou have an arrangement which was made in 2019, and that makes them, actually, a more simple case. When he\u2019s trying to deal with things like the T\u012Bt\u012B Islands legislation, which date back to 1978 and give effect to the deed of settlement, which was made in June 1864. He doesn\u2019t have the framework of the RMA to port over. That is a very similar arrangement, really. Ng\u0101 hap\u016B o Ng\u0101ti Porou are guaranteed customary rights of access and participation, so both public access rights and public governance rights\u2014different in nature\u2014in an area that is under the seas, or in rocky outcrops in their ocean. That is the same thing that named descendants are given in the T\u012Bt\u012B Islands legislation, but that doesn\u2019t port over in the RMA sense in a similar way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAny sort of planning committee had to read that as completely separate, because it has its own special way of also making regulations about who has access. That\u2019s also relevant then when you consider sort of other legislative arrangements like the T\u016Bpuna Maunga arrangements, which are 2014. They are a bit similar to the 2019 legislation in that they were made in an RMA context, but, again, these were a bit of a harder case because they\u2019re not quite as close to the property rights that the Minister is trying to protect. The T\u016Bpuna Maunga arrangements are about peoples\u2019 feelings and hopes and dreams for the maunga\u2014that it would be inappropriate, say, to develop the maunga in a way which was not consistent with what the Crown recognises to be important cultural significance of them, and that doesn\u2019t seem to fit clearly with something that would be decided at the regional level and should probably sit at the national level.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also want to ask him about, at clause 67B(6)(c) here set out on Amendment Paper 709, where he\u2019s just expressly included in the rohe moana that applies to that Act the Ng\u0101ti Porou settlement, whether any customary activities also include those in the south of Te Aitanga-a-Hauiti and Te Aitanga-a-M\u0101haki or in the north, Te Wh\u0101nau-\u0101-Apanui. His definition seems to do that, but they don\u2019t relate to the rights that have been granted to Ng\u0101ti Porou.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022039ba0db4e67d733b9dec3cff944058c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022039ba0db4e67d733b9dec3cff944058c\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:10)\u003C/span\u003E: A complicated series of questions there, but relatively simple answers. In relation to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227525744854c952898d14546eac45c1e0\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m not getting many calls.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001571\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f660d21e76cdceabac491953678039dc\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222aafe4a5fa927678c2e53c9e24fdecd2\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m not getting many calls, so I ask them all in one go.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227cf8b3a1fe17c705f4303d490323580d\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Righty-o. In relation to the regional combined plan, clause 63, it\u2019s a publication or requirement so plans for a region can be found together.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to the T\u012Bt\u012B Island regulation, I\u2019m advised they don\u2019t relate to planning issues. The legislation does not interact with the planning system so isn\u2019t provided for in spatial planning. So that\u2019s not really an issue, respectfully.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to the customary activities\u2014I mean, it\u2019s pretty simple. We have reached an agreement with Ng\u0101ti Porou in relation to their settlement, which is therefore recorded at a variety of points in the legislation. Clause 67B(5) and (6) in Amendment Paper 709 mean that a regional spatial plan must map or record, essentially, settlement requirements entered into with Ng\u0101ti Porou, which also includes customary activities that are protected per their settlement and other matters.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u002274b3e98e9c23da971cfe1377b775d501\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002274b3e98e9c23da971cfe1377b775d501\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (12:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019m interested in a comment that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform made before about spatial plans being a watercolour, and I\u2019d refer to Labour\u2019s previous legislation\u2014the Spatial Planning Act\u2014in the same way. Given that it\u2019s a watercolour, how does the work with both clause 67D, which are the provisions in a regional spatial plan that include objectives\u2014objectives sound \u201Cwatercoloury\u201D\u2014but maps are a bit more difficult to make into water colours, and actions, policies, methods, but not rules. I get the rules would be a strong oil painting. I\u2019m just interested in some more discussion about how \u201Cwatercoloury\u201D actions and maps are, and particularly with reference to this new clause 67BA that the Minister has inserted, and that is, \u201CRegional spatial plan must include standardised plan provisions as directed by national instrument\u201D. These sound, and the Minister can correct me, like those provisions might be quite oil-based, rather than watercolours, and then how does that link with the answer that he just gave to Lan Pham about not including limits in spatial plans because a spatial plan was a watercolour?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELimits should be limits and they should be in oil paintings, I can understand that point, but so too that the logic would be, then, that that logic should apply to those standardised planning provisions, as well. And how, also, does the \u201Cwatercoloury-ness\u201D relate to actions under the spatial plan?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, whilst I\u2019m on clause 67D, I do have a tabled amendment from 7.36.01 last night, and that is to include an insertion about planning for places in 67D. So we\u2019ve got that they must include objectives, maps, actions, policies, but not rules. I would include in there, with the objectives, \u201Cmust include objectives\u201D\u2014at (a)\u2014\u201Cfor achieving well-functioning urban and rural environments\u201D\u2014being the goal\u2014\u201Cincluding objectives relating to the distinctive characteristics, values, qualities, identity, and anticipated future character of place within the region.\u201D And this is just an attempt to import some of that planning that surely we want at a watercolour level for place, given how important place is. And I\u2019d also just want to\u2014I\u2019ll leave those questions there about my watercolours and oil paintings and also my Amendment Paper on planning for place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022ad39ec37b7253a9d66281b44962cb6d7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ad39ec37b7253a9d66281b44962cb6d7\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Very briefly, at the risk of destroying the metaphor entirely, it\u2019s a watercolour-slash-oil painting with some text-based additions, like a large caption underneath the painting. So it\u2019s not\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d64024c139f30de7ebe84a912bef0682\u0022\u003ESteve Abel\u003C/span\u003E: Oil and water don\u2019t mix.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b1598c4f271917ff8db1134e12f17c15\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022416d445fb03ac193aeac27417a6611a3\u0022\u003ESteve Abel\u003C/span\u003E: Oil and water don\u2019t mix, mate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226fb5263b0bff1d58f2a2517f30dd0c88\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, you\u2019d know. Look, it\u2019s not just lines on maps in a broad colour scheme type thing. It is literally what it is, in the legislations. It\u2019s the identification of constraints. It\u2019s where the areas of growth and change are going to be, looking out into the future. There\u2019s the requirement there for objectives. It says must include maps, must include objectives, must include actions, may include policies, but doesn\u2019t include rules, which is down at the layer below. But there is going to have to be some supporting text there, because the text explains what the map does, right?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe point is they\u2019re strategic, not detailed. Now, look, is there an argument about what is strategy and what is tactics? Yes, there\u2019s hundreds of years of debate about that, and the truth is it depends. But the point is to have\u2014and it will be largely over to people doing the first round of plans to work out what the balance is between the strategic priorities and the mapping, and what is the level of detail that should go into land-use plans. And there\u2019ll be some hard-edge cases, and over time we\u2019ll get better at doing this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut I think the member the Hon Rachel Brooking agrees that spatial planning is a big advance on what we have at the moment. We sort of have a bit of that already. In Auckland, for example, some of the urban growth partnerships, Wellington Regional Leadership Committee, Smart Growth, it\u2019s not completely unfamiliar to us as a country. The point is to do more of it, do it in other parts of the country, compared to what we have now, and have a statutory basis for it, and then get that funnel approach that we have talked about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002200daef2caf9247e04de856c1e1b4e141\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: There\u2019s a lot of members seeking the call here. I\u2019m quite happy to give members the opportunity for the back and forth, and then move on to another member. Rachel Brooking.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022232550db39a0e90d1f2d1952d970382a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022232550db39a0e90d1f2d1952d970382a\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (12:17)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I\u2019ll be very short on this. Yes, of course, Labour supports spatial plans. That\u2019s why we had our Spatial Planning Act that you repealed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002276b11cee999e2cce7f0fa3eeaf63515a\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: Mention number four!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225b7b46472e33e0089bb2f6e0db80b42b\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Keep counting. It\u2019ll come again. Do not worry. But I don\u2019t think he answered my question about why it is that standardised plan provisions can be in a spatial plan, yet limits aren\u2019t. And that difference between\u2014maybe the answer is that he envisages those standardised plan provisions to be at a strategic rather than a tactical level. If he could just answer that part. He\u2019s introduced this new clause 67BA in Amendment Paper 709, why, and how is it different from limits?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022 data-id=\u002234cac47972f48083a0ddb11dcd380fec\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002234cac47972f48083a0ddb11dcd380fec\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green\u2014Rongotai) (12:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. This is my first contribution in Part 3 of this bill. I do want to speak to some of my tabled amendments that amend bits of Schedule 3.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut initially I just want to start with some questions around clause 67C, which is about the \u201CUse of information and level of detail in regional spatial plan\u201D. And it\u2019s really about subclause 1(a)(i) and (ii), which is about the nature of the information that is used. Two questions. One is, we currently don\u2019t know if we\u2019re going to have a census funded in 2028. I believe Stats New Zealand is still legally required to carry out a census, but the Government is looking to move away from the census. So, I guess, how are regional spatial planning committees meant to get the data that they need to use to meet these requirements? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESecondly, I know there was a lot of criticism of Wellington City. My colleague Tamatha Paul was on the Wellington City Council at the time that they were pursuing their spatial plan, and I\u2019m just wondering if this part\u2014while of course we want this to be based on robust and reliable information. But does this become a point where opponents of spatial plans can judicially review or contest the information that a regional planning committee has used by claiming that it\u2019s not robust and reliable. Is that going to be something that can be used based on this if, for example, the population growth is not as high as what was expected, or shown to be not as high? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI know that there is a concrete example of that happening, and so I\u2019m just wondering about whether this leaves regional spatial planning committees open to judicial review or other types of court cases contesting the data that they\u2019ve used. I guess there\u2019s just a broader question about how the Government is going to resource with information if they\u2019re not going ahead with the census in the future. Those are my questions for now. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00222b56469a10678228bac1a22fe3680215\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222b56469a10678228bac1a22fe3680215\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:21)\u003C/span\u003E: The issue of a census is a live conversation, as I understand it, but regardless of whether there is a census or not, there is information and there will continue to be data. The issue of whether there is a census or not is neither here nor there, frankly. The intention is, I\u2019m advised, that a national standard for spatial planning will cover data standards, which could include things like projections around population and natural hazards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to the member Julie Anne Genter\u2019s question around judicial review, without forecasting the future, it is tolerably clear from a reading of both bills that judicial review is\u2014there are multiple layers of judicial review risk, to use a generic term. I don\u2019t want to prejudge any of that. As it exists in the Resource Management Act right now, whenever a Minister makes a decision or, in fact, a decision maker does make a decision, there\u2019s always the risk of review, but we\u2019re not stymieing that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to Rachel Brooking\u2019s point around clause 67BA, the point there is that a national instrument\u2014for example, a national policy direction\u2014could require, for example, objectives in relation to something like competitive urban land markets, as per the goal. For example, it can\u2019t get into the level of rules, because that\u2019s not available for a spatial plan, but it could get into something like the objectives, as required. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022 data-id=\u0022739411b52fda54782074846cf614162b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022739411b52fda54782074846cf614162b\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B) (12:22)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I want to speak to this. In the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper 709, clause 80 inserts after clause 80(4)(b)(ii) a requirement that a local authority, in producing, preparing, and deciding a land use plan, must have regard to any determination made by, in this case, the land market officer under clause 3 of new Schedule 10A on Amendment Paper 738. The Minister for RMA Reform has said that the land market officer determination will, effectively, kind of\u2014what was the word that he used\u2014put a finger on\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cb0dcf9a3d68711b10f85432219f4772\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: Put a finger on the pip dial.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223d63a733d1ce2d62dcaceac7e9fb7531\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014yeah\u2014to, basically, nudge the process in favour of the land market officer\u2019s finding.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI assume that there have been long discussions with the officials about this, but I just would suggest to the Minister that \u201Chave regard to\u201D is a pretty weak formulation, and I\u2019m interested to know why there hasn\u2019t been more consideration of whether or not a finding or a determination by the land market officer should not be more binding on a local authority, which then has to go and make its plan. I ask whether the Minister would consider or accept an amendment that would provide more of a legal consequence for the local authority in light of a finding or a determination by the land market officer that, for example, some decision or some provision in their draft plan is going to make the land markets uncompetitive. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00221decfdee313f2ac72e7885eabb98a9c1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221decfdee313f2ac72e7885eabb98a9c1\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:25)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, the member Phil Twyford is right, and we did have a debate about this. It\u2019s just about getting the balance right between the democratic control of plans and the ability of communities and councils to plan their cities but also making it clear that the decisions that those communities and councils make democratically have significant economic repercussions, as I know that that member appreciates. At the moment, we don\u2019t have, in my view\u2014and I think that the member probably agrees\u2014the balance right, and so we\u2019re setting up this independent economic referee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn time, I hope that it will become entrenched to the extent that the Reserve Bank arrangements around monetary policy are. For example, politicians in 1989 and 1990 decided that they couldn\u2019t be trusted to set monetary policy properly because the incentive was always to loosen the juice in election years or a bit before, and that was counter-productive to the sensible, stable control of monetary policy. I might be hoping in a forlorn way, but my hope is that we look back in 20 or 30 years and say that back in 2026, Parliament decided that there needed to be a strong and independent economic umpire in relation to the idea that land markets matter. I know that the member appreciates that, and I think there is actually now broad support across the House around that. There\u2019s obviously a lot of detail to work through and a lot of things to be fleshed out, but this provides a statutory hook for all of that, alongside the national policy direction\u2019s first draft, which we\u2019ve published. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe thought about strengthening up the term \u201Chave regard to\u201D. There\u2019s a backstop power for the Minister to step in and direct things, but we thought the appropriate balance was to let\u2014I mean, there\u2019s a duty, and it\u2019s in the Amendment Paper. There\u2019s a statutory duty to respond to the land market officer\u2019s determination and to bring land markets into line with the idea of competitiveness, and it will be over to councils and communities as to how they do that. There will be a range of different ways and it will depend on the context, it will depend on the facts, and it will depend on the finding, and so I don\u2019t want to get ahead of that. We think that we\u2019ve got the balance about right; others may disagree\u2014and I\u2019m sure people do. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022 data-id=\u00225243a9f19ad6699f90a435ca23c75895\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225243a9f19ad6699f90a435ca23c75895\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B) (12:28)\u003C/span\u003E: Just in light of that, is it not true that, hypothetically, a council could put in place a hard urban growth boundary or down-zone a part of a city next to a rapid transit corridor, for whatever reason; the land market officer then makes a determination that this is contrary to the obligation to foster competitive land markets; and, because of this provision and the use of the term \u201Chave regard to\u201D, the council could have regard to it, explain its position, and then carry on, regardless?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00229c2a8e27fc630892fc5f2bc14bbb06a2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229c2a8e27fc630892fc5f2bc14bbb06a2\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:29)\u003C/span\u003E: The short answer is that this is a debate about how much is in primary legislation and how much is in the national policy direction (NPD)\u2014OK? I mean, if you read the national policy direction in relation to housing and development, there is an extensive amount of things that deal with some of what the member Phil Twyford is talking about. For example, the housing development directive 1.5 says, \u201CTo enable urban expansion, land use plans must not include urban growth boundaries or requirements for development to be connected to existing urban areas.\u201D The member might say that that should be in primary legislation. We\u2019ve decided that with the way that the National Policy Statement on Urban Development works at the moment, the next layer down below the bill is the appropriate place to do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think there\u2019s a legitimate debate about how much should be in primary legislation and how much should be in the NPD. We\u2019ve tried to create a consistent framework across\u2014 because it\u2019s not just about housing, right, which I appreciate is the member\u2019s passion, alongside mine; there\u2019s a whole range of other things the bill\u2019s got to do as well. That\u2019s directive 1.5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EDirective 1.6 is in relation to meeting development capacity. It may allow urban development in high-value growing areas, areas of high national character, or outstanding natural features, if the development meets the criteria set out in national standards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EDirective 2.2 is in relation to as much intensification as possible in city centres, which reflects the existing national policy statement on urban development (NPS-UD); very high building heights in metropolitan centres, specified catchments, town and local centres. Some of the stuff picks up on things that are already in the NPS-UD. In relation to the member\u2019s question around whether a council could, in response to the determination, set a rural growth boundary, if you read the bill with the national policy direction, the answer would be no, and likewise in relation to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d2f4e20054c0061a3a14613df702f416\u0022\u003EHon Phil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: Maybe that\u2019s a bad example.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002232d7287d22f139a01e36e92e2a08e691\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Sure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022523437ccddc7039889831f51f0d876b1\u0022\u003EHon Phil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: It could be a smaller, more specific example that they could explain away.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fe9d5deb1c6b1a6dfb1332dd941ee406\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Again, to finally address this point, if you read clause 188B(1) in the Planning Bill amendment tabled last night, it is headed up, in the italics version, \u201CDuty of local authority to respond\u201D. Clause 188B(2)(a) has the critical phrase: \u201Cif the act or omission relates to the local authority\u2019s functions, powers, or duties\u201D, the local authority must decide how it will address the matter, implement the decision in a timely manner, and then advise the statutory officer and the chief executive of the decision and its implementation in the manner prescribed by the regulation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s a significant tightening of what the original draft was, which could be read as just saying, \u201COh well, we\u2019ve looked at it and we\u2019ve decided not to do anything.\u201D There is a duty to respond\u2014to create competitive land markets.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022 data-id=\u0022a1bb4acb056aacad1053b6343d9cc59e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a1bb4acb056aacad1053b6343d9cc59e\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B) (12:32)\u003C/span\u003E: But in light of what we\u2019ve seen over the last few years, quite a long list of councils have prevaricated, stalled, gamed the process, and run previous Ministers and this Minister ragged in their efforts to avoid complying with national direction on these issues. I would argue that this provision underpowers the land market officer and that position\u2019s ability to have its determinations enforced.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022585b549ad627ea809d39252d793961c0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001615\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022585b549ad627ea809d39252d793961c0\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:32)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, ultimately, the Minister can step in, in the same way they can do under the Resource Management Act now. Fair enough, I understand where the member is coming from.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt just goes back to that thing I started with, which is: do you want a non - democratically elected independent central government officer being extremely didactic and directive of councils? Or do you want them to make the finding and the determination and provide some advice but leave the ultimate decision over to the council and the community as to exactly how to implement the finding, with the backstop that the Minister can, if they really take the piss, say, \u201CWell, hang on a minute. You\u2019ve got this determination, you\u2019ve don\u2019t have enough development capacity, you haven\u2019t planned this properly, the independent umpire has told you that, you haven\u2019t got your land efficiency indicators, you haven\u2019t got enough capacity, you\u2019re not doing the zoning around train stations.\u201D\u2014I\u2019m just making these examples up. Well, these are not actually examples; all of this has happened. And then the officer says, \u201CYou need to do this. Here\u2019s some suggestions for how you bring your land markets back into competitiveness. Here\u2019s some ideas.\u201D And then the council doesn\u2019t do it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EUltimately, the Minister can say, \u201CSorry, I\u2019m stepping in.\u201D Now, that\u2019ll be contextual, and judgment- and fact-based, and all the rest of it. It\u2019s just what the right balance is. The member has a slightly different view from me. Part of me agrees with him, frankly. But, you know, we\u2019ve gone for this approach. Look, it\u2019s a new thing. We\u2019re changing the law here, and I hope we\u2019re creating world-leading legislation around land markets; I genuinely do. It won\u2019t be perfect on day one; the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act wasn\u2019t either, so we change things over time as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022 data-id=\u0022986932f00a5f229340284b01728a6e8e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022986932f00a5f229340284b01728a6e8e\u0022\u003EORIINI KAIPARA (Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori\u2014T\u0101maki Makaurau) (12:34)\u003C/span\u003E: T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Mr Chair. I particularly want to ask the Minister, straight off the bat, and it\u2019s in regards to Part 3, clause 63 to 74G, spatial plans, given that we\u2019ve already debated the Mana Whakahone \u0101 Rohe. But this is really in regards to mana whenua and is different from Mana Whakahone \u0101 Rohe.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI have an amendment here\u2014a couple, actually\u2014and it\u2019s really for the Minister to consider with care and seriousness the role of M\u0101ori, particularly mana whenua, hap\u016B. In T\u0101maki Makaurau, there\u2019s not one iwi; there\u2019s multiple iwi. But across Aotearoa, there\u2019s grave concern amongst M\u0101ori communities about their voices at decision-making tables. Nowhere in Te Tiriti does it say Ma\u014Dri are participants. The question, really\u2014the w\u0101nanga with Minister\u2014is: is there provision to insert here, in this particular part of this significant bill, consideration around inclusion of mana whenua voting authority on the spatial plan committee? The question, really, is: why can the Minister\u2014and the Minister referred to there being a lever, a backstop; the Minister will be a backstop, and that\u2019s supposed to give us some form of assurance on the validity of these processes. However, the question, really, is: why can the Minister appoint voting members while mana whenua have no guaranteed vote?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo the amendment that I\u2019m asking for\u2014and there\u2019s a series attached to this one clause, and it really does acknowledge and honour mana whenua and the position of being at the decision-making table, not as participants. So partnership with iwi authorities and customary marine title groups\u2014we\u2019re not just referring to whenua, awa; we are also talking about moana: taonga, beyond just painting and pictures. It\u2019s actually the very essence of our biodiversity, but it is our moana, our awa, our maunga\u2014everything.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo, with that, there is an innate connection between tangata whenua and everything that is taiao. So to determine decisions without mana whenua authority is a real failure. If we\u2019re going to make landmark, world-leading, global-leading legislation, then don\u2019t leave M\u0101ori behind, is, really, the pressing message from our stakeholders and our constituents as Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001622\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo going back to that clause: could Mana Whakahone \u0101 Rohe be implemented here? I heard the argument and the decision based on it being removed because it was attached to the old Resource Management Act. However, we\u2019re talking about moving forward new legislation, so why can we not include new provisions for new Mana Whakahone \u0101 Rohe permits in this?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00224acf1288b83b16e9c4b7849777ad6305\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224acf1288b83b16e9c4b7849777ad6305\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:38)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for her question. We thought quite hard about the composition of the spatial planning committees. The first thing to say is that people on them don\u2019t have to be elected members. So I think there\u2019s a widespread assumption that the people appointed to the committees by the local authorities will be elected councillors. They probably will be, I\u2019m sure that will happen, but there\u2019s actually quite broad discretion as to how that happens. Clause 71(3) says, \u201CEvery local authority in the region\u2014(a) is entitled to appoint at least 1 member of the spatial planning committee\u201D, and paragraph (b) says they may agree that they will not appoint a member, and there are some requirements as to who is on it, and the rest of it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001624\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESubclause 4 states, \u201CThe local authorities must ensure that 1 or more of the members of the spatial plan committee has knowledge, skill, and experience relating to\u2014(a) te ao M\u0101ori; and (b) M\u0101ori development.\u201D And then in subclause 5, there is the ability for the Minister to appoint one as well. That\u2019s a recognition that the Crown has interests here, OK? The Crown has an interest in making sure, for example, that the Bay of Plenty region is thriving and functioning and doing well, and the Crown has State highway functions, they have ports and growth and all of the things\u2014the Crown has an interest in all of these areas, and part of the challenge in the past is we\u2019ve not integrated those things properly enough, and that\u2019s partly why the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport has been created, to bring a whole-of-Crown perspective to some of these issues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think that will be widely welcomed by many people. It picks up on what\u2019s already kind of happening, right, like the city deals, urban growth partnerships, which the last Government did in Drury and in Bay of Plenty. In Wellington, the Wellington Regional Leadership Committee, you know, didn\u2019t really take off, but there\u2019s other reasons for that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223e0207ba6ccb65a4914a6d6b39d407f1\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Ha, ha!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001627\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229b49cfa6a34cc5a4539ed41aed7481e2\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Why are you laughing? Do you want me to get started on that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223033aedc5db0896cf757299b2da746df\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, get started on it!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001629\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221b959cfa99e8f5f3b873229700fa3226\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: No, no, no. Time is against me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b2c3ae58d31d5c11f15930d7fbc76a25\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Don\u2019t get the Minister started on other stuff.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001631\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bb9435956f29092d71de114a02534e90\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: No, don\u2019t do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn relation to the member\u2019s question, there\u2019s a requirement for one or more members of the spatial planning committee to have knowledge of te ao M\u0101ori and M\u0101ori development, and we think that\u2019s appropriate. The reason for that, for example, is that sites of significance to M\u0101ori, areas of particular cultural significance, all of those things, as I\u2019ve said multiple times now, should be part and parcel of the planning process, and the law actually specifically provides for that in Part 1, which we\u2019ve dealt with previously. I think it\u2019s a good approach.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001633\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022520c3a05cb8a1d7c45d88f0bdb486245\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Hon Rachel Brooking\u2014it\u2019d be good to have some shape now to where we\u2019re going. We\u2019ve been largely moving around, so I\u2019ve come back to you because you seem to be moving more methodically than some of the other members.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00228e50549d3f02cac483f37d482792a339\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228e50549d3f02cac483f37d482792a339\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (12:40)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I was, in my last contribution, asking about the type of artwork of the spatial plan. I would now like to keep on spatial plans, which are still just at the end of Subpart 1, and also noting, Mr Chair\u2014I can\u2019t remember if you were in the Chair or not when we started at this Part, but the intention is to go through the clauses and then the schedules rather than jumping to the schedules, in part because it\u2019s just a big document.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220dd88f8a58fb405c2d9e84cd0692612b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s the jumping around that\u2019s making it a little bit awkward, so I think we need to keep moving forward.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022acd6864cff8cab6d7d838bebd6bacf34\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, no, moving forward. Clause 74E is where I\u2019m at, and there\u2019s an amendment here from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform that \u201CA joint regional spatial plan\u2014(b) must clearly identify which local authority or local authorities are responsible for administering each provision of the joint regional spatial plan.\u201D I was wanting the Minister to give some colour to that. He\u2019s just said that the spatial planning committees don\u2019t have to be elected members. They can be, but they don\u2019t have to be. How does he foresee the different councils breaking up the administration for the provisions, noting that the provisions are watercolour provisions, not oil painting provisions? Would they be mapping specific areas, or would they be doing some sort of monitoring and enforcement of objectives, or monitoring policies, methods, or all the standardised rules that are going to be inserted? I just think it would be interesting to know why this amendment was made and what it is that he thinks they should be doing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022d11ea030a17f79acd1ef317c4750d48f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d11ea030a17f79acd1ef317c4750d48f\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:42)\u003C/span\u003E: I mean, it\u2019s partly just a statement of the obvious, which is, in clause 74E(1), when you\u2019ve got two  regions to agree to a joint one, and that may happen. I mean, clause 74EA specifically says that Nelson and Tasman need to do a joint one for reasons that I think are relatively obvious. I don\u2019t know, I don\u2019t want to get ahead of other regions or imply that I think they should do that, but there may be regions that decide, \u201CRighty-o, we\u2019re going to do a joint one.\u201D Clause 74E(2A) is sort of a statement of the obvious that you need to work out who\u2019s administering each provision because, by definition, you\u2019ve got two different regions with the boundary in the middle, and it\u2019s intended to signal that there may be subcommittees that work on different parts of it. It\u2019s really just, probably, a bit of a catch-all to be honest. I would say an avoidance-of-doubt clause.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00224bd845e38f70211fc78ed0d74209ae86\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001638\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224bd845e38f70211fc78ed0d74209ae86\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (12:43)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Moving on, then, to land use plans and my tabled amendment at 7.36.01 last night that goes to clause 81, \u201CProvision in land use plan\u201D, and it is the same inclusion that I had for the spatial plans. I\u2019m not sure if the Minister responsible for RMA Reform was in the chair then, and that is that \u201Cthey must include objectives for achieving well-functioning urban and rural environments, including objectives relating to the distinctive characteristics, values, qualities, identity, and anticipated future character of places within the region.\u201D As I mentioned earlier, that is to give some colour and to note the importance of place and plans when you are doing planning.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001639\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI say that because I\u2019ve been worried through the select committee process and the other readings of this bill that there\u2019s an idea that you don\u2019t actually need any planning. That, instead, people will just be importing standardised pieces and doing the colouring in rather than actually thinking about place and how important that is, and we\u2019ve had the discussions about green spaces before that relates to that, so I\u2019m wondering if he would consider that amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022 data-id=\u0022776e2e65c02f091c0b3b3b04f6cb8fb9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001640\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022776e2e65c02f091c0b3b3b04f6cb8fb9\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green\u2014Rongotai) (12:45)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Because we did jump around a bit referring to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform\u2019s amendment to the Amendment Paper, specifically about the statutory officer, I just wanted to signal that I think this merits a bit more discussion because it\u2019s not something that was considered during the select committee process. It\u2019s just been introduced quite late, so I just had a series of questions on that, but I still want to come back to some Amendment Papers about the regional spatial committee process and membership. I guess I\u2019ll go to the statutory officer because I think it would be worth us having just a bit of a discussion about how that\u2019s going to work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001641\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIt appears to me from the Amendment Paper that\u2019s been tabled by the Minister on 25 August at 7.26 that the \u201Cduties of the statutory officer\u201D is mainly relating to proposals and land use plans, or does it also apply to regional spatial plans? Does it apply to national direction at all? Would you expect the Government to be getting advice from the statutory officer for national direction? The reason I ask this is because, obviously, land use plans are meant to be consistent with spatial plans and are meant to be consistent with national direction, so just wondering if the Minister could tell us a little bit more about why this has also been introduced at this late stage. I\u2019m not opposed at all; just really, genuinely interested and curious about how this came up, because I don\u2019t think it\u2019s anything that we heard about in the submissions to the select committee. I\u2019ll leave that there, but I\u2019ve got more.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00229fbb45023c48d174eb1457a656bf0d20\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229fbb45023c48d174eb1457a656bf0d20\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:46)\u003C/span\u003E: The short answer is that it\u2019s about land use plans, not spatial plans. The second question was about advice to Government around national direction, and the answer is yes. My expectation would be that if there are trends developing over time, the statuary officer could say to the Government that you might want to amend national direction here or use this wording, to Mr Twyford\u2019s point before.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001643\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETake, for example, what is rapid transit? It seems relatively obvious, but we had a five-year debate in Wellington about whether or not the Johnsonville train line is indeed rapid transit; the level of the gauge, the frequency of the trains, did enough people get on? Should the train stations be counted as rapid transit? It was an interminable, annoying, frustrating, and insane debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAuckland Council, for example, has decided that one of the stations in the City Rail Link, I forget which, only has one main entrance now, and because it only has one entrance, the height limits around the station therefore need to be varied, even though it will be one of the most busy train stations in New Zealand history. I\u2019m not making this up. They have recently decided to downsize various parts around the station. I take your point. I mean, I\u2019m just getting a bit ahead of myself, but if there start to be trends and things like that developing, which I suspect there will based on previous council behaviour, then I would expect the urban land officer to tell us that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001645\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to where this came from, very briefly, as the member knows, I am passionate about driving change in our housing markets and creating competitive land markets. It would have been preferable to get into this earlier in the process. I accept that. As we reached the kind of crunch point of the bill coming back from the Environment Committee, we had a fresh look as a Government at national policy direction. I hope that this will be the first and last time we look at these issues for a while. There can be some refinements, but I don\u2019t want to go through a Big Bang reform process again. I think, frankly, the Parliament\u2019s over that. I think the country\u2019s over that. The planning profession is certainly over that. Councils are definitely over it. So we want to do this once and we want to do it right. I accept that it\u2019s a bit late in the process, but on the other hand, you want to get this right and try and create the best quality legislation that you can. That\u2019s the explanation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022 data-id=\u00225318d8d6365f8f901eef84ea3797f6e6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225318d8d6365f8f901eef84ea3797f6e6\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green\u2014Rongotai) (12:49)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you so much, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform for his answers. I guess I\u2019m wondering\u2014and it\u2019s somewhat related to the example he just brought up about the station design at Maungawhau\u2014will transport costs also be within the brief of considering competitive urban land markets? As I have raised repeatedly, you kind of can\u2019t separate housing costs and transport costs. There\u2019s a relationship between them. You can get much cheaper land and have much higher transport costs, and the overall impact on a household budget could be the same or worse. Low-income people are often pushed out to places that have poorer transport access because there are lower housing costs, but then they have much higher transport costs. It is entirely possible that you could get advice that you need to zone for a whole lot more land where there are not good transport infrastructure services, because that will bring down the cost of housing, but it could have a perverse impact on the overall cost to households if we\u2019re not taking into account the transport infrastructure and services that are available.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWith the Minister\u2019s point, look, I totally think there should be more upzoning, but at the point of designing a station, if they\u2019re value engineering a station and the Crown is paying and the council is paying, it would be good for them to have the advice that actually if you\u2019re building a train station here, it should have more than one access point, because that will enable more access to the station. I guess what I\u2019m trying to get at is will the statutory officer be able to consider this holistic relationship between competitive urban land markets and transportation services and infrastructure and the prices?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022a41b859b1c89bd66740d9e660758fe32\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001648\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a41b859b1c89bd66740d9e660758fe32\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:51)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, I mean, some of what the member is covering is under the kind of general rubric of well-functioning urban areas, which is a theme of the\u2014well, it\u2019s in the goals, for starters, but it\u2019s a general theme.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWithout getting ahead of the independent officer who will do this work, if the member reads Schedule 10A of the Amendment Paper she was referring to, the assessment framework is the key bit. The statutory officer must establish, review, and maintain an assessment framework to be used in making determinations under clause 3, which is the competitive land markets thing, and in the manner prescribed by regulations and national instruments, which we haven\u2019t done yet, so the short answer is possibly yes, but the point is the land market officer has to do the framework and we\u2019re actually leaving it over to them. There will be a bit of give and take around\u2014you know, the Government may wish to issue some direction around that as well as per national direction and then standards. But, I mean, to be fair, there\u2019s a bit of detail to be worked through on this. We are kind of building the plane as we fly it a bit, but I\u2019m really confident we\u2019re heading in the right direction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022 data-id=\u0022d8f9e214b45fbf847c8ed309f6f58556\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001650\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d8f9e214b45fbf847c8ed309f6f58556\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green\u2014Rongotai) (12:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Just one more. You\u2019ve mentioned that it\u2019s not applying to regional spatial plans, but land use plans have to be consistent with regional spatial plans, so how does that work?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022865aeba9be3c0ee0f77062243dcd2c8e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022865aeba9be3c0ee0f77062243dcd2c8e\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:52)\u003C/span\u003E: The land use plans are where the rubber hits the road on this stuff. I mean, I suppose it\u2019s not completely accurate to say that they don\u2019t affect regional spatial plans, because one follows the other, but going back up, I suppose they\u2019re tangentially related. The point is there is a focus on the land use plans because that\u2019s where the rubber hits the road around competitiveness. Yes, it\u2019s true that the land use plans must follow the spatial plans, but the competitiveness stuff comes in at the land use plan level. The whole point is that the spatial plans will be \u201Cwatercoloury\u201D enough so that if a land use plan change is required, that will not be inconsistent with the spatial plan. I suppose, is it possible to envisage a scenario in which that is the case? Yes, possibly. We can\u2019t plan for literally every eventuality, but my expectation is that doesn\u2019t happen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u002271473ff28dee07109130ef47da4ae05f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002271473ff28dee07109130ef47da4ae05f\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (12:53)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. This is a question that returns to the spatial planning committee reviews, which is clause 74 to the end of that subpart. The most straightforward way I can ask this question that I want to know\u2014you\u2019re right that the Crown has an interest in some of the arrangements that exist between iwi and council. Then there are some instances where the Crown doesn\u2019t have an interest, but those arrangements exist just between the iwi and the council. When you end up with local councils that are participating in the spatial planning committees, my question is when the arrangements change at the council level with iwi, how is the spatial planning committee meant to take that into account? Is the council meant to go and advocate for it? You\u2019ve created some special conditions here which mean that the spatial committee must consider that. That\u2019s in the case of marine and coastal area title or in the environmental covenants for \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Eng\u0101 rohe moana o ng\u0101 hap\u016B o Ng\u0101ti Porou.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut there are other covenants which are like that which the Crown does have an interest in, like the covenants created by Te Urewera Board under Te Urewera Act. Those are legislative covenants. Then there are all of the non-legislative covenants, because of course you can enter into a private covenant. The question there is how are the spatial planning committees meant to take them into account?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Treaty settlement legislation has grown up over a time where the Government\u2019s resource management arrangements aren\u2019t meant to take into account every kind of arrangement that will come up in those. They\u2019re meant to be negotiated on a one-off. The most recent, say, was Ng\u0101ti P\u0101hauwera\u2019s management charter, which also creates a kind of legislative covenant. But to have its local authority then going along and advocating at the spatial plan level to take those into account simply won\u2019t happen, so is the eventual outcome that they almost don\u2019t exist at the spatial plan level?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022a7b3826606aa24d9525cad6c69df690c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001655\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a7b3826606aa24d9525cad6c69df690c\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:55)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, all I can say in response to that is it depends. It depends. I mean, the bill lays out requirements for the appointment of spatial plan committees. Councils are separate things from local authorities, although obviously connected, because local authorities make the appointment. The short answer is it depends on what the local authorities wish to do in relation to their own arrangements with local authorities. The bill is not prescriptive around that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022 data-id=\u0022061f8cbc2ee9451efe63e7682253ef1a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022061f8cbc2ee9451efe63e7682253ef1a\u0022\u003ECATHERINE WEDD (National\u2014Tukituki) (12:56)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002215679dcdbe133269facb16cda418a0ef\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Optimistic.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u002211f837632cdf4be2dc3cce7ab97b782c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002211f837632cdf4be2dc3cce7ab97b782c\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (12:56)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I didn\u2019t expect us to get another call this close to lunch, but I appreciate it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve jumped around a lot, but I\u2019m going to briefly take us back on two amendments that I\u2019ve got on the Table for clause 67B.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022328c943d70568f6f3f2a0db5044294a7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Going backwards without new points won\u2019t help.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022924569fb64074862098fc9ad3d226389\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: I promise you it\u2019s new. It\u2019s to do with what is focused on in the regional spatial plan expectations, Minister, where you set out the key drivers in clause 67B(2). One of the notable things is you\u2019ve put in the marine and coastal area and priority areas for planning to adapt to the effects of climate change. My amendment proposes that what should also be in there is a requirement to accommodate natural hazards; priority areas for environmental protection, enhancement, or restoration; potential flood zones and flood pathways, which in the context of our climate-changing world and the desire for us to have lasting infrastructure and space seems like an important thing; significant natural areas; outstanding natural features and landscapes; ecological corridors, including potential pathways for restoration of ecological corridors; and finally, drinking water sources.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EOn that final point, can the Minister specifically elucidate as to why something as important as drinking-water sources would not be a thing that should be spatially planned for? We\u2019re acutely aware of the need to protect source water, being rivers, lakes, and aquifers, which is the foundation of water supplies, particularly in regions such as Canterbury or Southland where groundwater is an essential part of the water infrastructure or water necessity for the public. I wonder if he can explain to us why he hasn\u2019t included those things and whether he would consider including them. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022a115b83b45ec0f5ba167699ea1d60383\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a115b83b45ec0f5ba167699ea1d60383\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (12:58)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to move on\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229023d319ff2739dce0d85a5f1ccd60e9\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Actually, no, I\u2019m anticipating the member may take some time. We\u2019re very near the cut-off for lunch, so save yourself for afterwards. I\u2019ll go to the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022b78799a5dad1f2d2dbdb8856fdc20fc5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b78799a5dad1f2d2dbdb8856fdc20fc5\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:58)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m advised that not every region will need to do that. It may be that in some regions we do that. If it is significant, we may do that through national standards, but it\u2019s not a hard legal requirement, but regions may choose to do it or we may make them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221f8f6f40d7e5ee2c01db8ad19c831e9f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the lunch break. The committee will resume following question time. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EDebate interrupted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterItalicsCentred\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 12.59 p.m. to 2 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001669\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHouse resumed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002230dea69dca37db8f36ab5fd85a4ad412\u0022\u003EVisitors\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002229019840479386472ff7638d9909c8fd\u0022\u003EFiji\u2014Parliament\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001672\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002221076d1110c08b14dcdad4c0a6fad15d\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The House is resumed. I\u2019m sure that members would wish to welcome a delegation from the Parliament of the Republic of Fiji\u2019s Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, who are with us, in the gallery, this afternoon.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b7dafccccc77a1cbec1f1433101cf167\u0022\u003EPresentation\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a3a2a3d6113d5949bcd9b159598181a4\u0022\u003EPapers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e51d6dd7b387ea3601c0150d66be14b3\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I present the report of The Audit Office entitled \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Defence Force: Progress towards eliminating harmful behaviour\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI also present the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment entitled \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EAdrift: What future does the Emissions Trading Scheme have?\u003C/span\u003E Those papers are published under the authority of the House. We come now to oral questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001677\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002239c6d996b5d3d6326a5b23c5bf8e6add\u0022\u003EOral Questions to Ministers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022bd31c21160353db20584babcf91b08d3\u0022\u003EFinance\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001679\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00228f6f3ad0e031d07d69939b58ed1bf17e\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 1\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c96149a439844ecfa86967f9caf5f50d\u0022 data-id=\u00225934fd317573ef2a7554e97f1f17b638\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001680\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c96149a439844ecfa86967f9caf5f50d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225934fd317573ef2a7554e97f1f17b638\u0022\u003EKATIE NIMON (National\u2014Napier) (14:01)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Finance\u003C/span\u003E: Does she stand by her answers to oral question No. 3 yesterday?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022 data-id=\u00228338c187f3409c89d7647fee7f4f342a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228338c187f3409c89d7647fee7f4f342a\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:01)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, in particular my statement that to raise core Crown revenue to 33 percent of GDP in the 2030-31 fiscal year, the Government would have to increase taxes by $10.4 billion in that year, which equates to over $100 more tax per household every week. I\u2019m very glad that the Leader of the Opposition is listening. I\u2019ve done his maths for him, but perhaps he should\u2019ve done it before he made his announcement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001682\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f1650daa231edc0120b0d35a49ecc74a\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019ll do, thank you. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E] Just try and keep it slightly calm. We all know what the season is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001683\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b20031aad083d44beebedd8d1d69de1b\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: If she stops telling lies about us, I\u2019ll stop telling the truth about her.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001684\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d82e4a5197f87a185a5eb0b2e6c0e5be\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: For the member\u2019s sake, I\u2019m going to pretend I didn\u2019t hear that comment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001685\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a33bf363e939b4a7f9da692bbbdd3ac1\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, point of order, Mr Speaker. I did hear that comment, and I will not be called a liar in this House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001686\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aec7b2924b54d90d6aeb88938a1476a5\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Offence has been taken. The Leader of the Opposition should withdraw and apologise for that remark.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001687\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e6733b69b9235d7c85ae3e599f2a67bb\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001688\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c96149a439844ecfa86967f9caf5f50d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bf6f9849c51b95b47cf5d715374a788c\u0022\u003EKatie Nimon\u003C/span\u003E: What options would the Government have to raise that amount of tax?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001689\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dc27bdbcf93235c98c9667a129a1fd04\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: A future Government would have several options to get core Crown revenue to 33 percent of GDP. It could, for example, introduce a capital gains tax. It could cancel the current Investment Boost policy. It could deny interest deductibility for residential rental properties. However, those policies together would only raise around $3.5\u00A0billion in the 2030-31 year, which is a long way short of $10.4 billion. More taxes would be required.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001690\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c96149a439844ecfa86967f9caf5f50d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022887808af0a5dbd4d6abdd8c954119e3a\u0022\u003EKatie Nimon\u003C/span\u003E: What sorts of tax increases would raise that amount of revenue?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001691\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002294612a14d07274a10984903874c26aa9\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m aware that members of the Labour and Green parties have a lot of ideas on that score.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001692\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c410af7a5555bb0f1fbff849a3bc927f\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, no, sorry\u2014your awareness of those things doesn\u2019t matter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001693\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d1ed6111eca421e70e56178a0fdd5dfd\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Can I try again with a better answer?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001694\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223145236da56745014a55df5666c84ec6\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, we\u2019ll have the final supplementary\u2014and no one else speaking.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001695\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c96149a439844ecfa86967f9caf5f50d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226e29dabaeed216c20138145b55a44ca3\u0022\u003EKatie Nimon\u003C/span\u003E: Could personal tax increases raise enough revenue?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001696\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f64e08a50b47659db18b33a4ba03c8d9\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, of course, raising that amount of revenue could be achieved a number of ways, including through increasing personal tax rates. An option for a future Government to raise core Crown revenue to 33 percent of GDP would be, for example, through increasing personal income tax rates. It could put the current 17.5 percent income tax rate up to 20 percent, and put the current 30 percent income tax rate up to 33\u00A0percent, and put the current 33 percent income tax rate up to 35 percent. These tax increases, together with a capital gains tax, scrapping Investment Boost, and denying interest deductibility, would raise $10.4 billion. So that combination would work. It would also, of course, reduce the take-home pay of New Zealanders. Households would again be paying over $100 more tax every week. To be clear: this Government is not considering any of those options.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001697\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002233d368f69471c525d96d4a3e2b5cc35d\u0022\u003EHon Dr Deborah Russell\u003C/span\u003E: Living in a fantasy world over there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001698\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ba61efcc7a7d08cc2ce36b21162e8d4d\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon David Seymour and no one else, as I keep saying.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001699\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228bf4dbbc3fd28aaf0c168096958a1571\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: In the absence of $100 a week per household of new taxes, could the Government instead just borrow $10.4 billion a year, but what might that do to inflation and household budgets in that scenario?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001700\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a7a5aec9c4a7c57afaa794eb5a92e4ae\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, well, of course, if the Government committed to a target of increasing spending to 33 percent of GDP but did not find the revenue to fund that, it would have to add to debt. That would have a couple of impacts. The first is that that degree of fiscal stimulation would lead to higher inflation than would otherwise be the case, it would then lead the Reserve Bank to lift interest rates faster and to higher levels than would otherwise be the case, and it would lead to a significantly larger debt servicing bill for every single New Zealand taxpayer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001701\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c6574dd486bc05b515eff056ae9d9a6b\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: OK, we\u2019re moving on now to question No. 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001702\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e5a53a4e746f83fd19982dcabf9616b1\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: Supplementary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001703\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220e51a78253b75dc52fd7cc17b56c76c7\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, no, you can call them all you like.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001704\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223a0c753080ff92f5c89c572166ccf4e2\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, what, come on\u2014I was up. I stood up quick.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001705\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225d2b26aff59a809f308aaf5d2332da10\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, I know. Read your Standing Orders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001706\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00227d00378fdabc723946cf29865d6b8be5\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001707\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002260732687378c3d7445580a085d739af8\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022 data-id=\u002272972c6b8aa84fb170921ffde1f7bc33\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002272972c6b8aa84fb170921ffde1f7bc33\u0022\u003EHon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader\u2014Green) (14:06)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EE tautoko ana ia i ng\u0101 k\u014Drero me ng\u0101 mahi katoa a t\u014Dna K\u0101wanatanga?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001709\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003E[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EDoes he stand by all of his Government\u2019s statements and actions?\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022 data-id=\u00227472734ebedb2da06e48407568f25b45\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227472734ebedb2da06e48407568f25b45\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, and I can reassure the member that there will not be an increase to 45 percent for the top tax rate; we won\u2019t be implementing an inheritance tax, a death tax, or a rentals tax, or a wealth or asset tax.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001711\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022896286184cdee3535da9fbe964ce7c87\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Does he believe that his proposed resource management system will do a better or worse job of protecting the environment?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001712\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002217d84b9817934509731e5399900df990\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: It will do a better job of protecting the environment but also getting the economy growing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001713\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002262529eb8122e3139163fc7074b1d8482\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Should environmental limits protect the environment to support both ecosystem health and human health?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001714\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002212e3a03caa652077b9924ccf91c87f4b\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: The new legislation strikes the right balance of getting the country moving and growing while also protecting our environment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001715\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220d9cbb3cd6ddd1d86cb5d97e19858fce\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: What does he say to Forest and Bird, Greenpeace, and the Environmental Defence Society, who put out a statement last week saying that the amended resource management bills are \u201CEffectively removing environmental limits from the Natural Environment Bill;\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001716\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002266ec4346b9374d830973a10b98d75821\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: We respect their views, but at the end of the day, we\u2019re growing this country and we\u2019re getting this show on the road.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001717\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002208a6617464868d37a6fa8022ab95874e\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Why does he think that after 30 years of degrading waterways, with nearly half the total length of rivers unsafe for swimming, that self-regulation by the dairy industry will lead to better environmental outcomes?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001718\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229eee5963e66a2f56731f900d6ede1085\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: I reject the characterisation of that question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001719\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b2edbfe62a24df28608f8ff371e81e6\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Have the amendments introduced to the resource management bills addressed the concern raised by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that the wide ministerial powers in this regime create incentives for special-interest lobbying of Ministers, and if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001720\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c8162e857a26064eb4b6d93d9674fc23\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: In answer to the first leg of the question, no.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002281d274cba50ac17abc86ab79ebef537d\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Question No. 3, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001722\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002200e5b72e9063bdc367648f5a003ea669\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Is that all?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002227583424b30ef5ffed2ccca59537605c\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Just a moment. There\u2019s been an enormous amount of cross-floor conversation today, an enormous amount of conversation among the benches today, and an audible sort of buzz around the place, so everybody just quieten down. One person speaks when they\u2019re called to ask a question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001724\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002251cf35769c10223f0c1dab7b21042a53\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001725\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00227e88157632fccfdadada10d866789f6d\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 3\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022 data-id=\u00222cc7759fd81b8f38250546fcd68ea232\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001726\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222cc7759fd81b8f38250546fcd68ea232\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (14:09)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by all of his Government\u2019s statements and actions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022 data-id=\u00222ee330efd068bbec47057b29484a31c6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001727\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222ee330efd068bbec47057b29484a31c6\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:09)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I do, and particularly our desire to implement and vote for a rates cap at first reading, at second reading, and at third reading to make it law to lower the cost of living for Kiwis.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001728\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e83fd26ca97137ae34f305eaa79e1c9f\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Does he agree with the statement of Christopher Luxon in August 2022, \u201CAs a minimum, our health and education spending will be increasing by the amount of inflation going forward in our Government.\u201D; if so, has health and education spending increased by at least the rate of inflation over the last three years?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001729\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224d6ecea8a1cc6c79891139c0f5601f74\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, there have been very good investments in both health and education, but I\u2019d just put it to the member that what\u2019s really important are the outcomes and the results. When we look at the great work done by our Associate Minister of Education in getting 175,000 kids back into school and regular school attendance, that\u2019s a good thing, because 45 percent, which was the record that that member left, was unacceptable for a First World nation. When we look at the improvement that we have on structured literacy and structured numeracy, and those great outcomes for kids, those are fantastic outcomes. When we look at the health outcomes\u2014whether we take the five health metrics and targets\u2014there\u2019s been good progress there with more money going in, 2,100, extra nurses, 900 extra doctors since we started, and improvement in all the key targets, which is good progress.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001730\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229afd38792b6faefc51984b4f4964a742\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Is the fact that health funding hasn\u2019t increased by the rate of inflation over the last three years the reason that our hospitals are increasingly in crisis mode, you\u2019ve got paramedics treating patients in hospital corridors, neonatal units are understaffed and unable to provide care to our most vulnerable babies, and hospital patients are sleeping in soiled bedsheets because there\u2019s no one there to change them?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001731\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d85f9fa4e0b942d8578f19bd59b1f8b8\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I\u2019d just say to the member, we\u2019ve followed pretty much the same investment plan that the previous Government had. But I\u2019d also say we\u2019ve put $4 billion more into health spending. It\u2019s running at $34 billion; it started at $30 billion when we came here 2\u00BD years ago. But what\u2019s most important is outcomes. We\u2019re not like the last Government, which increased spending by 70 percent and delivered worse outcomes. Take the record on education and healthcare and put it up against us any day of the week, and your record was shameful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001732\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227f2677acccc007163964fbb6e0adf126\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: So why is a third of nursing shifts being understaffed a positive outcome for the health system that he\u2019s proud of?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001733\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228a07ca97e12a2d9935a6e3e51c4d9117\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I reject those stats. What I see is we\u2019ve got 2,100 extra nurses in our system, we\u2019ve got 900 extra doctors in our system, and we\u2019ve got an improvement in health targets\u2014key health targets. Immunisation rates for under two year olds are up almost 11 percent since you left Government and I took over this Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001734\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220f08fdde1c2bc7bf175fb272a3b50570\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Does he accept responsibility, then, for the fact that Middlemore Hospital has lost the equivalent of 74 nurses over the past two years, leaving paramedics treating patients in hospital corridors?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001735\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d7036ff55e210c457e2250f56933c6b7\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: What I take responsibility for is a Government that has invested $17 billion almost over the last three Budgets over the forecast periods. I take responsibility for finding 2,100 extra nurses and putting that into the healthcare system; I take responsibility for putting 900 extra doctors into the system; opening up a third medical school; opening up places for nurse practitioners, nurse prescribers; putting record funding into GP private\u2014you know, primary care.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001736\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c48fcf8c92619848c493ad5245f687ee\u0022\u003EHon Members: \u003C/span\u003EPrivate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001737\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022624fa4517d8a152e0ca01fa6feb25324\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: And also making sure\u2014yeah, go look at the numbers. Go look at the numbers\u2014go look at the numbers, you\u2019re more than welcome to do that. And importantly, opening up 24/7 telehealth, and $604 million into cancer drugs. We have more to do, but a good start.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001738\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022615ee1d0808fc5a23a43fd703e3445a4\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Does he accept responsibility, then, for the fact that Auckland City Hospital lost the equivalent of 74 nurses over the past two years, with its emergency departments capacity being breached one day out of three over the last year?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001739\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229ae08d26b2df92131211a2b7efe81fa0\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, what I note is that we are in the worst influenza season in a decade; the health system is managing exceptionally high demand currently. But if I just look at Waitemat\u0101 district, it has improved five points in emergency department performance in the last year. It\u2019s gone from 63.2 percent being seen within six hours, to 72.2 percent. It was 61 percent when he left Government; it\u2019s now 72.2\u00A0percent in Waitemat\u0101 in the middle of the worst influenza season in a decade.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001740\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d7c20783487983dbcbe4f15431046dc9\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: If the health system is getting the funding that it needs, why are only two-thirds of Starship Children\u2019s Hospital\u2019s cancer ward being fully staffed?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001741\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f6141b8d7fc084a51eeeaf4ae0c7a8e6\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, again, this is a Government that\u2019s putting more money into healthcare, it\u2019s putting more workforce into healthcare, and it\u2019s actually delivering better outcomes. There is more to do, but we have put more money, more resources in, and we\u2019re getting better outcomes than your Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001742\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022137f01b3a32fd24b9197c64d25c9d805\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: So if Government funding for education has increased by at least the rate of inflation, why are students paying fees that are nearly 20 percent higher than they were when he became Prime Minister?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001743\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b8a114cca782ada0577935a3b293f632\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, again, I just say look at the investments we\u2019ve put into education. We are focusing on three things. Attendance, because in a first world country 45 percent of kids going to school regularly is unacceptable, particularly when you\u2019ve been the education Minister for 5\u00BD years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001744\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b61dac40e4e30575355cbca61618de2d\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps the Prime Minister\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001745\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225322e0a4529b497cbc59faf0515037dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cac3b2612f8ee8927854868cf3172d04\u0022\u003EShanan Halbert\u003C/span\u003E: He doesn\u2019t even know.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001746\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022524bae488fe2eaf6e3ff2009c6a64436\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Hang on. Some of your own people are calling out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001747\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022426913099168e464e7e6fc79892b6e25\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: The Prime Minister may not have heard that the question was actually about tertiary student fees, which have increased nearly 20 percent during the time that he\u2019s been Prime Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001748\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ab00658e9e054d2051844daebada394a\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I don\u2019t think that word was put in there, but do you just want to ask the question again. Make it clear.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001749\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002240501ee8fb5f406cb8819957f13b228a\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: If education funding has increased by at least the rate of inflation under his leadership, why are tertiary students paying fees that are nearly 20\u00A0percent higher than they were when he became the Prime Minister?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001750\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002243af3d3f8488669ccac8d1f12d6d984e\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, this is a Government that\u2019s put a big priority on primary and intermediate and secondary school education. This is a Government that inherited a huge mess in vocational training: a $300 million investment to create Te P\u016Bkenga over 5\u00BD years of a previous education Minister, with no results. Actually, we\u2019ve put those polytechnics back out into regional New Zealand to connect people with jobs and into work. So our record on education\u2014I know that the member doesn\u2019t want to admit it. After 5\u00BD years of his supposedly being a champion of education, we are fixing his mess, we are fixing those results, and we\u2019re proud of that progress.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001751\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225274e27559601490715ea4bdb5c9c9a0\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, sir. Earlier, the Prime Minister sought the opportunity to compare the record of this Government to the previous Government. I therefore seek leave for there to be an urgent debate immediately after question time to debate that topic.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001752\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bf540b9c2c00dd30819f9c25ae77592a\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001753\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227180874b4addac0351ac79168fb04911\u0022\u003EHon Members: \u003C/span\u003EYes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001754\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002283ef5d23b95409553d486edc0ddcbe4e\u0022\u003ELocal Government\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001755\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e958b4577e47ee913540bbcc0c91d431\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 4\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022 data-id=\u002216e523e5dcdbfb513bbc15ef9f4e31eb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001756\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002216e523e5dcdbfb513bbc15ef9f4e31eb\u0022\u003EDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National\u2014Mt Roskill) (14:15)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Local Government\u003C/span\u003E: Why has the Government introduced legislation to cap council rates? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022 data-id=\u0022c802e4a1991a90055294ff0dd4280418\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001757\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c802e4a1991a90055294ff0dd4280418\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government) (14:16)\u003C/span\u003E: Because for too long, ratepayers have been hit with steep and unexpected rates increases, adding pressure to household budgets at a time when many New Zealanders are feeling already the squeeze. Ratepayers nationwide have been hit with median increases of 14.2 percent and 9.2 percent over the past two years, respectively. Under this Government, the days of roller-coaster double-digit rates increases are coming to an end.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001758\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002272a7e60af44bf042696e57d666f61112\u0022\u003EDr Carlos Cheung\u003C/span\u003E: How will the rates cap help keep rates affordable for households?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001759\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002229d0b07d0858509b1e2a2a11b729e190\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS\u003C/span\u003E: Under this legislation, councils will be required to keep annual rates increases within a target range of 2 to 4 percent. Rates increases are cumulative, which means that the amount a household will save grows over time. Rates are also one of the biggest household costs which households have no control over. In 2024, we saw average rates increases across the country of 14 percent. If we\u2019d had a 4 percent rates cap at that time, we would have avoided an average 10 percent increase, which cumulatively would have saved the average ratepayer approximately $2,881 over that 10-year period.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001760\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222cae9227389e1cb82906000914ed3417\u0022\u003EDr Carlos Cheung\u003C/span\u003E: How much could ratepayers save with a rates cap?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001761\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a653b3ffbab3f8b3988d82a8b4843054\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS\u003C/span\u003E: Just to give a couple of specific examples: in Waitaki, a 17 percent rates increase on the average rates bill of $3,500 would add about $595 a year. Under a 4 percent rates cap, the maximum increase would have been around $140, saving the average ratepayer about $455 a year. In Auckland, a 7.9 percent rates increase on the average rates bill of $4,378 would add about $346 a year. Under a 4 percent rates cap, the increase would have been around $175, saving the average Auckland ratepayer around $171 a year.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001762\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002234b8970852b2bc0ea4b5c4e124067a3f\u0022\u003EDr Carlos Cheung\u003C/span\u003E: How has the Government ensured that councils can continue investing in essential infrastructure under the rates cap?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001763\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d01bf3ec85a881232664829ce6c46aff\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS\u003C/span\u003E: Again, a rates cap doesn\u2019t sit in isolation; it sits alongside the replacement of the Resource Management Act, which will significantly reduce the number of consents councils have to grant. It also sits alongside the changes that this Government has made to infrastructure funding and financing, which will give councils better financing options. Rates capping sits alongside a whole suite of changes that this Government has made that focuses councils on the basics and it gives them the right tools to get the job done.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001764\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00223dd15f825cde0dbcacd1eab9e3ff8e3d\u0022\u003EFinance\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001765\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022184fe62892863f6787ca83b4e11de417\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 5\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022 data-id=\u002291a440ab1cb749561bd8d79da9d048d5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001766\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002291a440ab1cb749561bd8d79da9d048d5\u0022\u003EHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour\u2014Mana) (14:18)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Finance\u003C/span\u003E: Does she stand by all her statements and actions? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022 data-id=\u00222c7573ba2774c4b59e741d6e9ca08b39\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001767\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222c7573ba2774c4b59e741d6e9ca08b39\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:18)\u003C/span\u003E: In context, yes\u2014particularly my answer to question No. 1 today, which the Leader of the Opposition took issue with. Everything I said in that answer was completely factually accurate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001768\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002209ac960fb86d528fa8e98c59f0e74a3d\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: Who is correct: Nicola Willis, when she said that the Government would \u201Creduce food prices for Kiwis\u201D; or Cameron Brewer yesterday, when he said, \u201CWe, as a Government, are all about more sustainable food price increases\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001769\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022664c1987c2eed6ca198f16cc371c8cf5\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Both are correct, and it\u2019s also correct to say that food prices are lower than they would otherwise be if we had had a Government that was pumping up inflation with excessive wasteful spending.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001770\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e0d2d9c0038ba8ad890d8c5ba88e1cd7\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: Who is correct: Nicola Willis, when she said that \u201CPrices coming down is exactly what we want to see\u201D; or the Prime Minister, when he said that decreasing prices was a bad thing?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001771\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002295b34a461b1967e4149c470c04a0a36b\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, again, both are correct. It can be the case that overall inflation is stable and within the target band but that there are also some prices for some goods which are falling. If she looks at the most recent food price inflation, which had food inflation slowing to 1.9 percent, she\u2019d see that within that basket of goods, there are some food items which have reduced in price.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001772\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002278a2ecfa87070f8c7e136d8bcd1fb98d\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: Why did she claim in August 2024 that she was \u201Cstarting to get the cost of living under control\u201D, given since she took office, the price of cheese has increased by 28 percent, steak by 37 percent, and butter by 88 percent?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001773\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022622ef73babd71335db6c544c33ec22fd\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Because when I made that statement, I was reflecting on the fact that inflation in that year had dropped dramatically. In the September 2024 quarter, it was at 2.2 percent; March 2025 quarter, 2.5; June 2025, 2.7. A fair comparison would be, for example, June 2022, when inflation was 7.3 percent; September 2022, when it was 7.2 percent, as it was in December; and March 2023, when it was 6.7 percent. The fact is this: with disciplined spending and a single mandate for the Reserve Bank, this Government has exercised much more control over inflation and therefore general price increases than the last Government ever achieved.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001774\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221d04e0b3b19a1dcf92cc008a49494827\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: Does that mean that overall food prices are higher or lower than three years ago?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001775\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022863b67802d40c2550cfd7f8b71f2b219\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: It is a disappointing day in this House when the Opposition finance spokeswoman needs to ask that question. Yes, it is the case that food prices are higher; it is also the case that wages are higher. What matters to people being able to get ahead is that wages rise faster than inflation and prices.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001776\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226c2dc1083421ca72b371e4fc70467218\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: How does the Minister of Finance find it, taking lectures about prices from people who created more inflation than a bouncy castle?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001777\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db0130fe3078c60f483cc175199bdde9\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, you\u2019ve asked a question that is designed to attack the Opposition. We\u2019re not having that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001778\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cad72c44ebd3e52ac90d40b1dd053fbf\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: When did the Government\u2019s policy change from \u201Chelp bring down food prices\u201D, \u201Creduce food prices\u201D, and \u201Clower grocery prices\u201D to \u201CWe, as a Government, are all about more sustainable food price increases\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001779\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022824a2b86a0e378d75add9895ddb05040\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: It has consistently been the case that we are working to ensure that food prices would be lower than they otherwise would be, in a context in which fiscal policy is so expansionary that it is driving out-of-control inflation. New Zealand has had a very recent experience with this under the last Government, when food price inflation reached 12 percent. It is the case that when Governments are disciplined about their own fiscal choices, that lowers overall inflation and food price inflation. It is also the case that there is a very live debate occurring right now in our body politic about the virtues of simply spending more without the means to pay for it. The reality of what that does is it drives up prices for everyone, as occurred during the cost of living crisis under the last Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001780\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00226eda81b4e549c18f060b32c2cff85521\u0022\u003ERegulation\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001781\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002203da6bb5bd5a94ee8d95a7a31696ead7\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 6\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00225aede352354ee4608dcc4993092a1111\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001782\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225aede352354ee4608dcc4993092a1111\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (ACT) (14:23)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister for Regulation\u003C/span\u003E: What initiatives has the Government taken to ease the regulatory burden on New Zealanders?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022 data-id=\u0022f7b04591582ee5b04be122c403e2103f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001783\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f7b04591582ee5b04be122c403e2103f\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation) (14:23)\u003C/span\u003E: A great many, in fact. I dare to say that cutting red tape and deleting stupid rules has almost defined this Government\u2019s programme. Perhaps no initiative stands out more than replacing the Resource Management Act with a simpler system grounded in property rights, and for that I commend the member for his stoic and conscientious efforts, alongside Chris Bishop. That reduction in rules and red tape around using people\u2019s own land is the single biggest initiative to make wages higher and houses more affordable as we spend more time getting stuff done and less time being told no in this country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001784\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a0de779a495e87d2daa31ae6be2375ad\u0022\u003ESimon Court\u003C/span\u003E: What practical results has the Ministry for Regulation delivered?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001785\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c4ef74e6d1b17d81a1584c0c1ee38bd0\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Well, again, in sectors from the hemp industry to hairdressers to hospitality, you are seeing the Ministry for Regulation hearing the concerns of regulated parties, which they might not have been willing to tell their regulator, and formulating plans that are now being implemented to cut red tape and delete stupid rules. For example, the benefits of reducing the time to import a horticultural or agricultural product or a veterinary medicine into this country is expected to free up $270 worth of value, just from reducing red tape. We\u2019ve seen many small initiatives\u2014something as simple as being able to bake a cake and sell it, or put your garden shed wherever you like\u2014that all stacks up to saving hundreds of millions of dollars by unlocking New Zealanders\u2019 potential to get stuff done.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001786\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220261a7cbb400af02541ad22be14bbd24\u0022\u003ESimon Court\u003C/span\u003E: What action has the Government taken to reduce unnecessary regulation in the workplace?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001787\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002292e18f469fd041fd4d8b64c1f32f7b1c\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Well, many of these initiatives that I\u2019ve already talked about reduce regulation in the workplace. However, there are many specific initiatives that the Government has taken\u2014for example, those by the Minister for Workplace Relations, Brooke van Velden, who has replaced a broken Holidays Act that was so bad even Government departments couldn\u2019t seem to work out how to pay people properly; restored 90-day trials; clarified the status of contractors vis \u00E0 vis employees; and removed unnecessary employment law barriers. Brooke van Velden has also overhauled the health and safety law so that businesses can focus on critical risks and actual safety rather than tick-box exercises. I could go on, but this Government, across the board, has been committed to giving people more time to actually produce the things that they need so they can get paid more, so things can be produced more cheaply, and so they can afford them rather than being in compliance activity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001788\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022813dbd3460e0ffea3f0b1462943e6f62\u0022\u003ESimon Court\u003C/span\u003E: How is the Government reducing the burden imposed by earthquake-prone building rules?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001789\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022008006c8c61b9e984980d951c3e83110\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I mean, this is a perfect example and perhaps one of the largest and most significant initiatives the Government has taken, which is to save an estimated $9 billion in excessive earthquake compliance. These rules have destroyed people\u2019s livelihoods. For example, a constituent of mine who lost her life savings because her body corporate did some routine maintenance which triggered earthquake strengthening work, lost everything having to comply with that law. It will now be gone. We\u2019re going to save $9 billion. That was the work of the Hon Chris Penk. It\u2019s very sad what happened there, but when you get military people too close to Government, they often try and take over eventually.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001790\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b169571b36e45b49ea954369642ea2d4\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Question No. 7\u2014Suze Redmayne [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]. Suze Redmayne\u2014and no one else.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001791\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00227257505797a088632ba756576cab7a3f\u0022\u003EAgriculture\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001792\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c5bbf2f67917382e63096f1ff8cc4b93\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 7\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022 data-id=\u0022c003371b1ec7a7e4405a7f926ff0e6db\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001793\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c003371b1ec7a7e4405a7f926ff0e6db\u0022\u003ESUZE REDMAYNE (National\u2014Rangit\u012Bkei) (14:27)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Agriculture\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Government considering a capital gains tax on farms?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u0022cb98931306b6bbfde44ad2b06ea51fb3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001794\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cb98931306b6bbfde44ad2b06ea51fb3\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (14:28)\u003C/span\u003E: No, we will not be implementing a capital gains tax on New Zealanders, just as we will not be implementing a land tax. As the Prime Minister has said, a capital gains tax would be a wrecking ball tax for the New Zealand economy. The Government is keeping taxes low so New Zealanders, including rural New Zealand, can keep more of what they earn and have more choices about what they and their families can spend their money on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001795\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022852527fe5558f99586f8041064fcb1ee\u0022\u003ESuze Redmayne\u003C/span\u003E: What reports has he seen about a capital gains tax on farms?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002211e8dd5a47c73bd35c4289eb9cf3e525\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve seen a report by Federated Farmers that says, and I quote, \u201CThe constant threat of new taxes completely undermines farmers\u2019 confidence to invest in our businesses to increase productivity, efficiency and sustainability.\u201D\u2014and I end the quote. A capital gains and land tax, with inevitably complicated rules, would mean New Zealand businesses would pay more tax, and it would be harmful for the business confidence and the Kiwis that own those businesses. We should be finding ways to reduce tax, like the Government\u2019s Investment Boost, so people can invest and innovate, grow their businesses, and create more higher-paying jobs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001797\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002204400c8708d673406d849c54128753a9\u0022\u003ESuze Redmayne\u003C/span\u003E: What other reports has he seen about taxes on the rural economy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001798\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022746438dd94fec3482fde782b717505c7\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY\u003C/span\u003E: Former finance Minister Bill English said about capital gains tax, and I quote, \u201CI think every finance minister has a look at it, and they seem to come up with the same answer. In fact, Michael Cullen told me that at the time, he said, I\u2019d go through it and then IRD will tell me that it\u2019s actually not \u2026 worth it\u201D in the end. It\u2019s clear that successive finance Ministers have recognised that a capital gains and land tax would not drive prosperity or help New Zealand, and this is why the Government won\u2019t be implementing either of these taxes on rural New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001799\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226bb8ff5daf20a207d7ad00663d6194a0\u0022\u003ESuze Redmayne\u003C/span\u003E: Has he seen any other reports about taxes on farms?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001800\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f998de40985526780b9a728d1e22c7b6\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY\u003C/span\u003E: Well, yes, I have. A farming representative said\u2014and again I quote\u2014\u201Cevery election we find ourselves responding to proposals that unfairly target farming: methane taxes, water taxes, wealth taxes, land taxes, or capital gains taxes.\u201D Federated Farmers describe the capital gains tax as a \u201Cmangy dog, that [would] add unacceptably high costs and complexity to the rural sector\u201D. They are right. We should be backing the rural sector and their 360,000 jobs, not taxing them more, which is why our Prime Minister has ruled out these taxes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001801\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022906eac3ea77f42d5c71a0fba1a1c48a2\u0022\u003EEducation\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001802\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00228b01c4aefaa56f44e6c420c1e802d336\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 8\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022 data-id=\u0022b92188a9b0cf222bc6bf9991e1239b06\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001803\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b92188a9b0cf222bc6bf9991e1239b06\u0022\u003EHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (14:30)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Education\u003C/span\u003E: Does she stand by all of her statements and actions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002237b40d11275f4dba8e36c41507f8a1c5\u0022 data-id=\u0022709abd9593c9e7ebdbdfe3fdc6378eb2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001804\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237b40d11275f4dba8e36c41507f8a1c5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022709abd9593c9e7ebdbdfe3fdc6378eb2\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (14:31)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, and in particular my actions in special education. I\u2019m really proud of the work that we\u2019ve done in the last three years, with 142 extra special and satellite classrooms around the country; six almost full school redevelopments of our special day schools; and three new special schools: one in Drury, one in Palmerston North, and one in Gisborne\u2014they are the first that have been built in 50 years\u2014and tens of millions of dollars into learning support modifications. Inclusion is choice, and I\u2019m really proud to have ruled a line in the sand to fully support the special education sector.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001805\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e641dc4bf8aa41b0bd8a29676c8ba9a6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022687fe6363b1e52bba0a14cd9e129e8ca\u0022\u003EReuben Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Why did she say, in relation to teenage use of social media, \u201CWe know the harms and we need to do something about it.\u201D, if she doesn\u2019t intend to pass the first reading of the Online Safety (Minimum Age and Child Safety Risk Assessment) Bill before the election?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001806\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237b40d11275f4dba8e36c41507f8a1c5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226b1405d84b3d04c3c42b8db99c10b7ca\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: Every parent knows the harm of social media. That\u2019s on top of all of the reports and evidence that are now starting to flood out. I am really proud of the fact that we have worked hard for the last year to get to a point where we can introduce a bill to the House and show the country what we are proposing. We would have introduced it so much earlier\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001807\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002294424711ad23cc4db109dd8425ed9917\u0022\u003EHon Dr Megan Woods\u003C/span\u003E: You could do it today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001808\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002296ea34f7e9dde9736294740136fac440\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, careful. Carry on. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001809\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e641dc4bf8aa41b0bd8a29676c8ba9a6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220bbf50ae070ff3d8f70bb7a9e2e40b71\u0022\u003EReuben Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Why did she say, \u201CWe\u2019ve watched these platforms become more sophisticated, more persuasive, and more powerful. This has to change.\u201D, if she doesn\u2019t intend to change it by passing the first reading of the Online Safety (Minimum Age and Child Safety Risk Assessment) Bill before the election?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001810\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237b40d11275f4dba8e36c41507f8a1c5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223e96426f23780ac1ffe8849a2131645c\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s interesting, this line of questioning from the Opposition. They have had five months to be this passionate about it. I have given them multiple occasions viewing the bill, asking questions, having my officials at their beck and call. If they had been this passionate about it weeks and weeks ago, we could have introduced it and had a first reading, but they buggered around and here we are and we\u2019re out of time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001811\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ba3fbaaf3be699efbcafda5c42528b94\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. By the Minister\u2019s own admission, sir, this is a very important issue. That was a straight question, it wasn\u2019t political in nature, asking why\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001812\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b04426c11ac0af8b9b4e0e01c899dfa9\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Listen! A point of order gets heard without any comment from anyone else in the House. Please start your point of order again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001813\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220564ee9ebdde02d180a3cb9cdcc0a0c5\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: By the Minister\u2019s own admission, this is a very serious issue. It is entirely legitimate and, actually, a non-political question to ask why the Government has made such a big deal about the introduction of a bill, citing its importance, but not wanting it to be read for the first time despite there being a few weeks of sitting left. For that question to be responded to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c70742ca0855b9cb14517ef3ddc05d57\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Come to the point. What is the point of order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001815\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ff075ed769f924334006684d6c66d954\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: The point of order is that the entire response of that straight question was political in nature, which, as you know, and, in fact, the House knows, is clearly against Speakers\u2019 rulings. Straight questions deserve straight responses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001816\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002236179a7c208903e7191a0daecfc4d48b\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s true, but there are also Speakers\u2019 rulings that make it clear that when a political question is asked, a political answer will be given, and it most certainly was, in my estimate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001817\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e641dc4bf8aa41b0bd8a29676c8ba9a6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227194b7732d01513063e5c1c3630c3019\u0022\u003EReuben Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Why, when there are more than 26\u00BD hours of House time remaining after this week, won\u2019t the Minister commit just one hour to passing the first reading of the Online Safety (Minimum Age and Child Safety Risk Assessment) Bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001818\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237b40d11275f4dba8e36c41507f8a1c5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222305e3fedcc649a7ee9789b012a17ddc\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019ve already made it very clear that there are not many days left of sitting. We\u2019ve got a very, very full agenda, but as I\u2019ve already\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001819\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fb38787467e4192eca5c675645823df8\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Just a moment. Sorry, just a moment. We\u2019ll hear the rest of this without the barracking from anywhere else in the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001820\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237b40d11275f4dba8e36c41507f8a1c5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221da304b1e9019534b5396972977d27b6\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019re right in the middle of an extraordinarily important bill brought by Minister Chris Bishop: the Planning Bill. We\u2019ve got a very full agenda. There are only a few days left of sitting time, but as I\u2019ve already said, we could have done this so much earlier if we had had more support from the Opposition.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001821\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226ab611408e49943f11b4ead7bea159bd\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: You\u2019ve said enough.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001822\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e641dc4bf8aa41b0bd8a29676c8ba9a6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220cd855f978b94d4c45aa3ad50429d1e5\u0022\u003EReuben Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Why did she ask young people to speak publicly about their deeply personal experiences of viewing disturbing content online, including self harm and extreme violence, to highlight the urgency of this issue if she is now saying that job can wait until after the election?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001823\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237b40d11275f4dba8e36c41507f8a1c5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220ad1beceb435063f10f98eba0a8ccafe\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: Those videos have been up for some time on my social media to raise awareness of what is an extraordinarily serious issue that I have been spending the last\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001824\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002273343d6b3989d96b97b30307667403e6\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry. We\u2019ll now hear the rest of the answer in complete silence. You can start again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001825\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237b40d11275f4dba8e36c41507f8a1c5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fe81b0ed9ddafcc73bb87e904018e9f9\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: Those videos have been up on my social media for a long time because we wanted to highlight to the public, to parents, and to anyone who wants to learn about the harms of social media that this is extraordinarily important and that we are talking to young people to understand what their concerns are. But again, part of it was also to let the Opposition know, because for all of that time they wouldn\u2019t support the bill until yesterday. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001826\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220dc6e863fcf5733f3570411577ab149e\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m going to have to ask one of those front bench members to either keep it down or take an early cup of tea.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001827\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e641dc4bf8aa41b0bd8a29676c8ba9a6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228fb462309c08415d8b30d0bc81fee47b\u0022\u003EReuben Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Is it correct that on Monday this week at 3.30, the Government announced the introduction of the Online Safety (Minimum Age and Child Safety Risk Assessment) Bill, and on Tuesday at 2 p.m., we indicated the bill has our support, only for the Government to say at 4.25 on Tuesday that it won\u2019t allow a first reading of the bill before the election; and if so, why is the Government seeking to use such an important issue as a political football? [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001828\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b69c9fe9a74b193f570c332a52025d0\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Just a moment. This has been identified, obviously, as a political question, so we\u2019ll listen in the same silence to the answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001829\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237b40d11275f4dba8e36c41507f8a1c5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228621591184c6eede474b023519f166f1\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: In relation to that second part of the question, I have been working extremely carefully over the last five months to not turn this into a political issue. I have given multiple briefings about the bill on multiple occasions to the Opposition, including one time when they were able to invite all of their MPs to come and see the bill in a room and only four of them bothered to show up. They have had plenty of time to support this bill and they didn\u2019t bother to do it till yesterday, after asking 79 ridiculous questions late last week. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001830\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022698869c03652aae0403a91f90eb39d07\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s enough. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer\u2014question No. 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bfb5350f3fe9a89091b50dc94df49cff\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: You got caught out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001832\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022027601de2c45173e7e2c2676bcab3a98\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, do you want to leave or not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001833\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eb90217c0d663b7247fbd6b55574b59a\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, if you want me to, I will.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001834\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002273cfac95958d82b9effa884667ce117a\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, I don\u2019t particularly want you to; I just want you to be a little bit more considerate of the process and particularly the opportunity for Debbie Ngarewa-Packer to ask a question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001835\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002234cd98643253a64af0a0c40b35483c58\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001836\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00229da9813e12805177d7c789c352a1dcd0\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 9\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022 data-id=\u0022bd46b5318d3c2e2938a328805a434d56\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001837\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bd46b5318d3c2e2938a328805a434d56\u0022\u003EDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader\u2014Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori) (14:39)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by all his Government\u2019s statements and actions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022 data-id=\u0022533ed3dca625a21f2cd07769d904d735\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001838\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022533ed3dca625a21f2cd07769d904d735\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:39)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, in particular this Government\u2019s response not to implement a capital gains tax or a wealth tax.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001839\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022657d8d218157a2ca54a800d5917a8567\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer\u003C/span\u003E: Does he accept that his Government has increased taxes, levies, fees, and charges on 32 occasions despite repeatedly telling New Zealanders there would be no new taxes?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001840\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c24808c65e7d0a3b8b4aa74cecbafda9\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m very proud of the fact that this is the Government that introduced tax relief for the first time in 14 years that helps lower and middle income working New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001841\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002239a3e786ea5f33c734ea3b531659a70e\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer\u003C/span\u003E: Why has his Government prepared to give the largest tax cut gains to higher income households and hundreds of millions of dollars in tax relief to property investors while increasing costs on ordinary New Zealanders?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001842\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224974650f143f6073390fcdbd90d71847\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: I reject the characterisation of that question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001843\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002265b608c46518d4cfc774dc9a5d06cddc\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer\u003C/span\u003E: If debt is still rising, and struggling wh\u0101nau are being asked to pay more, why is asking the wealthiest New Zealanders to contribute more the one option his Government refuses to consider?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001844\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002221db7739957a0fbbf9e5f376a3d5070f\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: I want to correct the member: a capital gains tax or a wealth tax would be an absolute disaster for New Zealand. It would just add cost on to low and middle income working New Zealanders. This is a Government that cares deeply about low and middle income working New Zealanders, as evidenced by the fact that we were the first Government in 14 years to give tax relief\u2014sadly, opposed by Labour, Greens, and the union movement, and that\u2019s bad, bad, bad.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001845\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f995b2252cfce2257f4899d38e863ee\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Prime Minister confirm that this Government scrapped the tenant tax, and rent rises are at their lowest increases for 25 years?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001846\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022452a93ba607bc7b6be9957ef6f8be7e2\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: I can. I can confirm that under a previous administration, it went up $180 a week. What I can say is we\u2019ve had the lowest increase in rent in 25 years; that is a function of very sensible housing policy. We saw house prices go up 30\u00A0percent in a single year. The good news is we\u2019ve got first-home buyers at record highs at 29\u00A0percent; affordability has improved; and, most importantly, we\u2019ve had people sitting on a social housing State house wait-list\u2014it went up four times under the last Government\u2014and, I think, we\u2019ve taken about 7,000 people off that list into proper homes, and that\u2019s all good stuff.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001847\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d3632e539166efdb0072f53bfbb879b1\u0022\u003EResources\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001848\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ef911422f43c60997d00f148903669a2\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225f6c5b1a97f24773a8aaeb3a8e3b0e7b\u0022 data-id=\u00228ba112137674ab06f56a05c8644c14d5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001849\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f6c5b1a97f24773a8aaeb3a8e3b0e7b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228ba112137674ab06f56a05c8644c14d5\u0022\u003EJAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) (14:42)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister for Resources\u003C/span\u003E: What announcements has he made regarding petroleum and mineral exploration in New Zealand?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022 data-id=\u00229d50fd9d03c1d36032140d3e2aa47fdf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001850\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229d50fd9d03c1d36032140d3e2aa47fdf\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources) (14:42)\u003C/span\u003E: Recently, I announced that the seventh petroleum permitting application has been accepted for assessment. Since the repeal of the offshore wimpy, unloved, loathsome exploration ban\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001851\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002265580079cf311eacaf0fdc057cf4567e\u0022\u003EHon Dr Megan Woods\u003C/span\u003E: That you announced.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001852\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002256241e5e35face979571ef83f4f35b39\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014imposed by Jacinda Ardern, when she misled Winston\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001853\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fb0259717dbd6705532c13e3d71c8fd7\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No\u2014no, sorry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001854\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223e7920712182008d5f7b96d721820179\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001855\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002231ddd1b59dfb1af183752cee60644622\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, it\u2019s not necessary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222463c9dd8f6bb2c4dd3c88dcbfcefd18\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: I don\u2019t want to hear from that 3-inch toad.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001857\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d177813b96f35718e9663c36a15c0be3\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, look\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E] I\u2019ve been very clear that the rules are, and have been, for as long as this Parliament has sat, the Government cannot use questions to itself to attack the Opposition. That is exactly what was happening in that question. You get one more shot at it and then we\u2019ll be out if it can\u2019t come into line. Jamie Arbuckle.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001858\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f6c5b1a97f24773a8aaeb3a8e3b0e7b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d14178d59379dccbbd59fde08d6a4926\u0022\u003EJamie Arbuckle\u003C/span\u003E: Supplementary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001859\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227dff838f5d82de8ea0e1f1599d520eb5\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. I believe he called one of his colleagues a \u201C3-inch toad\u201D, and that shouldn\u2019t be allowed, surely?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001860\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a0f27a49190ad0e41e488162758ccecb\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, you might find that offensive applied to you; clearly, they don\u2019t. Can we have Jamie Arbuckle.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001861\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f6c5b1a97f24773a8aaeb3a8e3b0e7b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b53941a13bc69f526e93524285cd42c9\u0022\u003EJamie Arbuckle\u003C/span\u003E: How many petroleum and mineral permits were approved in the past year and how does that compare to previous years?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001862\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022042c4e7a74fd564d5e815941b31fad46\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. I\u2019m presuming that I\u2019m answering the primary question, sir?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001863\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222d2735f5346c8b1939fbef4b7281c647\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, you\u2019re answering the supplementary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001864\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221cdd3d47f28fb835b7d5ca39e721d284\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: No, your reference to me, in correcting me, was to have another go. I presume you were inviting me to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001865\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002203a53aef152c3358bad28f2594e1ac76\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, I didn\u2019t say that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001866\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ebb48cdf9a54fdcfcd749a5cd7926f2\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014correct my answer to the primary question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001867\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022429a5cbbbf05279280a498ec7ea7f879\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, I said we will have one more go at hearing the question, but we\u2019re on the supplementary now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001868\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d1ee5dab06bda3fd6c011cc385a94413\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: So on the supplementary?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001869\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b45b22514f449f47f7a79e7142048c1e\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yes\u2014yes. Do you want it read out to you again?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001870\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ac021f469d80b2294952569e995b909e\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: I have announced, on behalf of the Government, that we have now received the seventh petroleum application. We will be considering an application from CBX Energy, and they will be proceeding in the Pegasus Basin, east of the North Island, to undertake technical studies based on existing geological geophysical data. A country that understands and backs its resource potential is better placed to control its future\u2014a future, sadly, that was snuffed out as a consequence of a bad decision in the past.  Thankfully, that future was salvaged when this Government overturned a bad decision, and, as a consequence, energy security is in far safer hands.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001871\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f6c5b1a97f24773a8aaeb3a8e3b0e7b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229aad3119d57e0014a8b56e7699f0cf17\u0022\u003EJamie Arbuckle\u003C/span\u003E: How does the extractive sector support the New Zealand economy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001872\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225ee0562ebc6d23e7f0a5a1ab07a9d036\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: The New Zealand economy is on a far safer footing as a consequence of an expanded mineral estate. It is important that I read into the record: 2025 calendar year, 434 petroleum mineral permit approvals\u2014the highest number on record, more than double the 210 approvals in 2023 and greater than the previous record of 393 in 2024. Since the beginning of 2024, more than 1,000 permits have been issued.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001873\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225690e493dba3e114d33ce8a60ff00883\u0022\u003ESteve Abel\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019ll cancel them soon.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001874\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224669b8b30889b4656d1f0d0e15685b7c\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: The Government is bringing\u2014ah, I have heard they\u2019ll all be cancelled. This is why New Zealand cannot afford to change the Government. We have heard the Venezuelan recipe\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001875\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224349d88fd882b4e7e5f99e02c5e1c345\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, no. That\u2019s enough. Sit down, Mr Jones.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001876\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f6c5b1a97f24773a8aaeb3a8e3b0e7b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002270fb1003bc42aa249b1804d05f13c0a0\u0022\u003EJamie Arbuckle\u003C/span\u003E: Supplementary?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001877\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ec83067f2c1c06b7752938e2a8e364f2\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, we\u2019re moving on to question No. 11.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001878\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00220fdece5f04db3b870e209425f720091c\u0022\u003EInfrastructure\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001879\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00226f50ba12739599fb27358a3940e7aae2\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u002213c98fd4532f26d93c708d2951b67c6d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001880\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002213c98fd4532f26d93c708d2951b67c6d\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (14:47)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister for Infrastructure\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by his statement that \u201Cit depends\u201D, when asked if ratepayers will pick up the bill that would otherwise have been paid for by development contributions for fast-track approvals on land not zoned for housing; if so, what does it depend on?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022d7ad6d200dbbe372edc53575e36fc700\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001881\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d7ad6d200dbbe372edc53575e36fc700\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister for Infrastructure) (14:47)\u003C/span\u003E: In context, yes. My full statement during the environment Estimates debate last week was: \u201CThe short answer is that it depends. It depends on the project, and it depends on the conditions granted in relation to that project.\u201D I also said that people need to read the conditions, because I think there is an assumption that, if something is fast-tracked, building can happen immediately. People should read the conditions. They\u2019re often extremely extensive around highway upgrades, waste water and stormwater, local roading upgrades, wetland restoration, the need for network capacity or an alternative solution if there is no capacity, and more, before a project can even happen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001882\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229d1373a50c8bd7b38ca8b2978a5e0343\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Does he agree with Auckland Council analysis cited in the letter from the mayors of Auckland and Queenstown that ratepayers could end up subsidising the infrastructure costs of current fast-tracked greenfield projects by up to $1.5 billion?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001883\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d60484a61dd471f1bf12b8aead256e63\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: I haven\u2019t seen the underlying analysis around that claim, but I do agree with the general point, which is that, in relation to the wider network infrastructure effects, we should maintain a core principle that growth should pay for growth. That\u2019s why the Government has announced amendments to the Local Government Act in order to make sure that development contributions can be lifted in response to out-of-sequence greenfield fast-track projects.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001884\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ede01265ec50cd04146e7339bb455feb\u0022\u003EDan Rosewarne\u003C/span\u003E: Why should Waimakariri ratepayers have to pay infrastructure costs for Carter Group\u2019s \u014Choka development that has twice been rejected due to major concerns over flooding, transport, and infrastructure and is now being considered again via fast track?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001885\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228a7bf2e437875192bd3d97ffaf64c2e2\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: A couple of points there: one, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that, because that project is before\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001886\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c535383afc7fe9ffb422bc2483058c7d\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003ELooking after your mates.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001887\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228d31aab310279bd2e88a4df1bc791c18\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it is before an independent panel appointed under fast track, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment. In a more general sense, in relation to all projects, I would just encourage the member, as I said in response to the primary question, to go and read some of the conditions attached to greenfield fast-track projects, which, as I read out, are often extensive, often mean the projects will be staged once the infrastructure has been built, and often require the developers to provide a range of infrastructure upgrades.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001888\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fb7b26efb3c8f190aad1cd98dfbc2d18\u0022\u003EIngrid Leary\u003C/span\u003E: Were the mayors of Queenstown and Auckland wrong when they told the Government, \u201CThe unchecked use of the fast-track system to force tens of thousands of houses into rural areas with limited public infrastructure is not helpful\u201D, and will in fact make things worse for many ratepayers?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228daed18b8f951d9df077e050cf0ff5d1\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, there\u2019s any number of factual inaccuracies in that statement. I have huge respect for both mayors. Firstly, the powers are not unchecked; secondly, there is no compulsion or force required; and, thirdly, housing can go in rural areas as long as there is infrastructure required to service that development. That literally has been the process of development in New Zealand for the last 150 years, and the Government stands by fast track.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001890\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225322e0a4529b497cbc59faf0515037dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226f56f2bdf1ec9dbd281c249767c8fb65\u0022\u003EShanan Halbert\u003C/span\u003E: Why does he continue to support the Delmore project when he said, \u201CIf the infrastructure is not there, not only should you not be allowed to do it, you actually can\u2019t.\u201D, since that project will have to truck sewage to Whang\u0101rei?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001891\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227b8c88b15092e04448e132bcf8e646cf\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, in relation to Delmore, it\u2019s not a case of whether or not I support it or not; it\u2019s a case of whether or not it has gone through an independent expert panel process, which it has. Again, I repeat what I\u2019ve said twice now, I encourage members to read the decisions and read the conditions. Stage two of that project cannot go ahead until all\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001892\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225322e0a4529b497cbc59faf0515037dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022180c99f7be97152b2a6255edbe999981\u0022\u003EShanan Halbert\u003C/span\u003E: Sewage to Whang\u0101rei. Read it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a2602c569081b8279452b41b63a40588\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Listen\u2014listen. You might learn something. I know it\u2019s difficult for you, but you might learn it. Stage two cannot go ahead until all necessary infrastructure\u2014roading, waste, and waste water\u2014is addressed. For waste water, this could include a connection to a public network, expansion of the stage one private waste water treatment plant to service the entire development, or another solution. You need to read the conditions of all these projects.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001894\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223b2e397526a1cfed36823d63e6c3de7f\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: How can he claim that fast track is working well when he has left ratepayers on the hook for hundreds of millions in infrastructure spending?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001895\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223f87bb17988c6036f072b22f10455c93\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: I can claim that fast track is working well because near where she is, the Hananui Aquaculture Project, which was declined under the Resource Management Act, will provide hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in a salmon farm in the South Island and give effect to a Treaty settlement. I can claim it\u2019s working well because Precinct Properties got approval to build a billion-dollar development in Commercial Bay in just six months. I can claim it\u2019s a success because 1,000 megawatts of renewable energy generation capacity has been consented in the last 18 months alone. I can claim it\u2019s a success because the Waitaha Hydro scheme, the first hydro to be built in New Zealand in 20 years, got approved after seven months when it was declined under the previous Government. And I can claim it\u2019s a success because, in the Waikato, we\u2019re building a waste steel recycling facility providing hundreds of jobs. Fast track is getting New Zealand building again, we\u2019re building the future, and we stand behind it. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001896\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226b805e8ac763b9eeec8df12698bf3f17\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Question No. 12, Chl\u00F6e Swarbrick, and, I say it again, no one else.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001897\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022eea12412dbfbe17a70fda9532fc5c873\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001898\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ebbab2fdea5898609caaed496c5d71cd\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 12\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022 data-id=\u0022390eb338bfec90deca3d0e6ca6c62d38\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001899\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022390eb338bfec90deca3d0e6ca6c62d38\u0022\u003ECHL\u00D6E SWARBRICK (Co-Leader\u2014Green) (14:53)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EE tautoko ana ia i ng\u0101 k\u014Drero me ng\u0101 mahi katoa a t\u014Dna K\u0101wanatanga?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001900\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003E[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EDoes he stand by all of his Government\u2019s statements and actions?\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022 data-id=\u002237e0857983df5922f8596d6ad6fb7046\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001901\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002237e0857983df5922f8596d6ad6fb7046\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:53)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, and particularly our decision not to implement a 45 percent top income tax rate, and particularly our decision not to implement an inheritance tax, a gift tax, a rentals tax, or an asset tax.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001902\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002239c85c8f5d07909fd04792de5f3b32d2\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Prime Minister stand by his many previous statements that increased costs for businesses will result in increased costs for consumers; and if so, does he understand that his intention to make power companies pay for his billion-dollar liquefied natural gas (LNG) import facility will result in higher power bills for New Zealand consumers?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001903\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002287c56167a17d730bc4ed0cf32177ff1c\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, as I said to the member yesterday, the good news is\u2014and I know she takes a great interest in this because failed energy policy from the previous administration had people lose their jobs\u2014wholesale electricity prices have dropped 35 percent since the peak of 2024. Our energy plan is definitely working; we\u2019re lowering the risk premium, that\u2019s lowering the bills. And look, this is more good news: the Meridian CEO said that he\u2019s going to pass on to commercial customers next year that drop in wholesale electricity prices, so the strategy is working. We have a strategic coal reserve in Huntly, we have a strategic diesel reserve in Whang\u0101rei, we have an LNG import facility coming as a backstop, and most importantly, we have a renewables boom under way in this country and that\u2019s fantastic.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001904\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022842642be5a18c18fe530ceda533e461a\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: So does the Prime Minister think that energy is the only sector in the economy whereby increased costs on businesses are not passed on to consumers?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001905\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228fff4392980137b0a552b38b8ed95f34\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, as I said yesterday, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and National Infrastructure Funding and Financing are working through the LNG import facility. It will not be funded by a levy on power bills. It\u2019s very simple for us. We are de-risking the dry year risk, and as a result we\u2019re lowering power bills. That\u2019s a good thing. You\u2019ve just seen it in wholesale electricity prices. The failed policies of the last administration led to $800 per megawatt-hour wholesale electricity prices. I just encourage the member to get on the website and look out and check out the forward electricity wholesale electricity prices and you\u2019ll see some really great value there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001906\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229c7ad29389518a6300d2dff904345be7\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: Supplementary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001907\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002260aaff4405e10eaef3ea1b1881181e2f\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Supplementary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001908\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227d14b04ffc44f08ab6f99720db56e0a9\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019ll just do one over here. Chl\u00F6e Swarbrick.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001909\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221c5a5ad6c819d367d7408cf7051e8762\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Why is the Prime Minister comfortable using billions of dollars of taxpayer money to underwrite the LNG import facility, which is not backed by any independent expert or economist?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f017f1a7f711040dd6d3f3eb85fea664\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, again, as I said, we\u2019re working through a process, and when we complete that process we\u2019ll have more to say about it. But I just want to say to the member, the energy strategy of this Government is actually lowering wholesale electricity prices. We were in an absolutely tragic situation where destroying and banning oil and gas led to $800 megawatt-hour wholesale electricity prices, and mills and regional jobs were lost across this country, thank you to the previous Labour-Greens administration.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001911\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022be3bf477a96ca30668f6e82932dfaa15\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: Can he imagine believing that residential rental property was the only sector in the economy where increasing taxes wouldn\u2019t be passed on to consumers\u2014i.e., tenants?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001912\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fb8591338a44ec4ae56e61e875c490f8\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, there\u2019s a very good case, you know\u2014the Deputy Prime Minister raises a very good point there, which is that, under this Government, by restoring interest deductibility, managing the brightline back to the period of time, we\u2019ve actually been able to lower rents in this period. Having stable, lower rents; we\u2019ve actually had the lowest increase in 25 years\u201425 years\u2014after $180 a week increase under the previous administration. That helps regular New Zealanders. That\u2019s how you actually help them, support them in a cost of living crisis. And that\u2019s why I just ask the member to please, please support the rates cap.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001913\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ee28850a37c7c3ce4956f230c7330a6a\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: If his Cabinet can delay critical decisions on who pays for climate adaptation, why can his Cabinet not delay critical decisions on billion-dollar fossil fuel infrastructure until after the election, when he could argue that he has won a political mandate for something that he did not previously campaign on?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001914\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223f601692d6d099a93cdcce01ba518ccd\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I think New Zealanders appreciate downward pressure on power bills. That\u2019s what the energy policy of this Government is delivering and that\u2019s what we care about. We actually care about lower power bills. We care about working people getting supported in a cost of living crisis, and putting downward pressure on energy prices. That\u2019s exactly what we need to be doing. A 35\u00A0percent decrease since the 2024 peak created by the failed policies of the last administration is actually fantastic news because that means lower prices next year are going to get passed on to commercial customers. That\u2019s great for our economy: businesses grow, costs are lowered, and jobs are created.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223c8a49766e49a8be980b9926095b5050\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. Mr Speaker, again, I appreciate that the Prime Minister does not actually have to answer the question, but he did not even attempt to address the question, which very specifically was about whether the Government would consider delaying the LNG import facility decision, which will be underwritten, potentially, by a billion dollars of taxpayer money until after the election.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001916\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220f2a2b166befe6304c4a73c59052b9a0\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Good. You\u2019ve outlined your argument, but not exactly a point of order. But the Prime Minister most certainly addressed the question that was put to him. Do you have another supplementary?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001917\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c77ae5e69b795b77d267b728df322a6b\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll take one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001918\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228528317b056f6df2132397b8c4e90f00\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I think we\u2019ll leave it there. That concludes oral questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001919\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI declare the House in committee for consideration of the Planning Bill, the Natural Environment Bill, and the Emergency Management Bill No (2).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001920\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002213aab11c58bc891709a919a914624724\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001921\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00229f5ae1cd42c363fc97e9deee0f3c3699\u0022\u003EPlanning Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001922\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00227757ec496aaa58ca6dd79907c298e7ae\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001923\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001924\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022956067573424cc572ac3e818977f2671\u0022\u003EPart 3 Combined plan, and Schedules 2 to 5 (continued)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227981d483e039c8eb4e7d258421d0221a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the committee is resumed on the Planning Bill. When we suspended earlier today, we were considering Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 63 to 106, \u201CCombined plan\u201D, including Schedule 2, \u201CRegional spatial plans\u201D; Schedule 3, \u201CFurther provisions relating to plans\u201D; Schedule 4, \u201CIndependent hearings panels\u201D; and Schedule 5, \u201CDesignations\u201D. Once again, the question is that Part 3 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00225397f415a79ef0e22d6b56120759908e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001926\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225397f415a79ef0e22d6b56120759908e\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (15:01)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, as you\u2019ve said, we\u2019ve been working through Part 3. We\u2019ve not got near the schedules yet, nor regulatory relief. I\u2019m sure we\u2019ll all want to talk about regulatory relief; that comes in at clause 92 and I\u2019ve got an Amendment Paper on that. Before then\u2014and I think maybe my Green Party colleagues might have other questions, I\u2019m not sure\u2014we\u2019ve got clauses 84(a) and 84(b), which are all struck out, which are the requirements for rules that control fishing. I know there was a small debate on this point\u2014well, one question\u2014in a different part of the bill about the processes of the Fisheries Act in a contribution from Rachel Boyack, but what I would like to know from the member in the chair is why was it that these changes for rules that controlled fishing happened after the select committee process, and, in fact, after another resource management bill that went through the Environment Committee that amending the fishing controls that took a lot of House and committee time last year?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001927\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIt is my understanding that the provisions that were in the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill\u2014that those fishing controls then came into the Planning Bill went through the select committee process. I don\u2019t think there were very many amendments to them, but now they\u2019ve come out. So why is it that they\u2019re coming out after all of that process and after this Government has, in two different pieces of legislation, included them? That\u2019s my question on those sections before we get to regulatory relief.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022a360c31ef7a253cc7b029c3b9e795718\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001928\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a360c31ef7a253cc7b029c3b9e795718\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (15:03)\u003C/span\u003E: Fishing and the impacts of fishing on biodiversity and on the environment are able to be managed under the Fisheries Act. What this Government\u2019s been very clear about is we want this legislation\u2014the Planning Bill and the complimentary Natural Environment Bill, which we intend to become law\u2014to be very clear and focused in their scope. If the impacts of fishing can and should be managed under the Fisheries Act, then there is provision to do that. We\u2019re just being clear about what the scope of this bill is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u00228c12a0732352c363f8681fefde41a76c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001929\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228c12a0732352c363f8681fefde41a76c\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (15:04)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m really happy to take this call right now, because I specifically want to pick up on the Minister\u2019s comments around fishing, because this has been a substantive change that has come in in the last-minute amendment. I\u2019m really interested to hear directly from the Minister about what the implications will be for particularly those areas of the country who have put in protections for ocean ecosystems under their planning regimes. When they move to the new system and they\u2019re putting in place these bills, does that mean that the protections will have to be removed when those plans are notified? I\u2019m thinking particularly where we\u2019ve got instances in Northland, in the Bay of Plenty, and in Marlborough. This is a serious change and those people and communities, and iwi and hap\u016B in those jurisdictions, will be really keen to hear the Minister\u2019s answers to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001930\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also am interested to understand where the justification came for the last minute change, because some of these areas are recently put in, and why risk reopening these protected marine areas to fishing when they actually hasn\u2019t been any thorough assessment done, and any research about what has actually happened to the affected habitats and the biodiversity in terms of recovery or otherwise? Has the Minister consulted with these councils and those communities that have been affected by this, because the rug really has been pulled out from under them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001931\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWith the Minister\u2019s reliance particularly on the Fisheries Act, the other aspect that I really want to understand is, we know that the Fisheries Act itself has been too slow when it comes to actually being responsive to ocean ecosystems. It\u2019s usually at the point where fisheries are collapsing when the alarm bells go off and we\u2019re taking some form of action, or at least assessing it. So why that insistence to rely on the Fisheries Act when we know it\u2019s been so slow?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001932\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhy as well\u2014the Fisheries Act has as its focus the use\u2014and, in other words, the exploitation\u2014of fisheries, rather than ecosystems, at its centre. I note that the bills and the new framework are pretty light on protections for biodiversity in particular. But again, why go and rely on the Fisheries Act versus where things could be and where they were with Motiti?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001933\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, as we know, the Fisheries Act doesn\u2019t make any reference to either life-supporting capacity or the maintenance of indigenous biodiversity. Now, these have been key aspects which have informed the development and the arrival of where these areas have actually got to when it comes to marine protection, particularly in the coastal areas. So I\u2019m really keen for the Minister\u2019s responses on those, and I know the communities will be keen to hear them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022925112c2aa549c004337c1f997af799a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001934\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022925112c2aa549c004337c1f997af799a\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (15:07)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for the question. Thank you, Madam Chair. The member and I have chatted many times, in different forums, about how we agree it\u2019s very important that New Zealand identifies and protects marine biodiversity, and that in the places where overfishing and fishing practices have damaged the marine environment, there\u2019s a pathway to restoring them, including through the Hauraki Gulf/T\u012Bkapa Moana Marine Protection Act, which is a start.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe member makes a good point: it takes many years of monitoring and evaluation to determine whether the tools and the actions are having an effect on improving marine biodiversity. But I just want to be clear, we\u2019re talking about regional plans, and while the fisheries legislation continues to be a primary mechanism for managing the effects of fishing on marine biodiversity, the existing plan provisions for some of the plans that were mentioned\u2014in Northland, Bay of Plenty, and Marlborough\u2014will continue to be in place throughout this transition period until the new system comes online, estimated by around 2030. By that time, it is reasonable to expect that these protections, where sustainability, where managing fisheries\u2019 impacts have not been carried out to a satisfactory level, that the Fisheries Act then provides for that, and we expect to see action under that Act and under the leadership of the responsible Minister to drive that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001936\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut what we\u2019re talking about here today is the planning provisions. So I\u2019ve been clear: the provisions we have exist until the transition period is complete. I fully expect that under the fisheries legislation, what we will see is a focus on delivering all of those protections that we agree are important, but they\u2019re not in scope of this legislation because this is a planning bill and we\u2019re talking about spatial plans. We will leave that to fisheries.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022 data-id=\u00226a1ee1fff5951f4bb4e97c5cee99ff3b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001937\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226a1ee1fff5951f4bb4e97c5cee99ff3b\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (15:10)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to ask a question on clause 71 around the appointment of the spatial plan committees. My question is based on the answers from the previous Minister in the chair. It was actually quite an important question, and it relates to an answer he gave earlier that the local authority can appoint a non-elected member to the spatial plan committee. My question is whether that member, if they are not elected, has full voting rights and make up part of the quorum. Based on the answer to that question, I\u2019ll have a follow-up question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022c8241ca45e486e61cfa26618451dd7c3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001938\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c8241ca45e486e61cfa26618451dd7c3\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (15:11)\u003C/span\u003E: Just one little point on the fishing: the member in the chair said it is not in scope because this is the Planning Bill. But the bill as introduced included the fishing controls, so it\u2019s totally in scope. There can\u2019t be an argument of scope; that makes no sense whatsoever. It\u2019s there and he\u2019s deleted it, so it is in scope. I\u2019m happy for the Minister to tell me why I\u2019m wrong about that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001939\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMoving on to regulatory relief\u2014so I\u2019m now on clause 92\u2014there are many sections now on regulatory relief, but I just want to take the committee to my Amendment Paper, No. 667. I got this Amendment Paper in very early, and I do think it would be good if it were just one number earlier, because I think 666 would be very appropriate for these regulatory relief provisions. What this regulatory relief scheme is going to do is one of either two things, or both of them combined: that is, it is either going to cost ratepayers up to $2 billion\u2014$1.99 billion by the Government\u2019s own figures\u2014or it is going to lead to the undoing of environmental protections, plus it is going to create great, great inefficiencies in the system, and there\u2019ll be many more jobs for lawyers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001940\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt can all be solved very easily. Amendment Paper 667 is part of that, and so it is the\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001941\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223f1ec2cbaf8943dca95bae713422d4b9\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003E6-7!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001942\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e974e39887d9f19a8caaf3c6eb925706\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, no! I\u2019m sorry, Madam Chair, but I\u2019ve got colleagues who are talking about 6-7, but never mind.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001943\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f0d31505882949b1a768aad60863fba9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223fbf3eb9a556585aab3c87ab6ec86f28\u0022\u003EJoseph Mooney\u003C/span\u003E: Put it on TikTok!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001944\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226509c4d1a983807462bda78744af3e85\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Put it on TikTok\u2014not quite on TikTok. I say thank you for the suggestion to the member for Southland. That Amendment Paper is simply to delete clause 92 and Schedule 3\u2014we can go to Schedule 3 later. But I think there can be no justification for these regulatory relief provisions. They are dangerous, they are a total change in how New Zealanders have treated property law in this country, and I\u2019m sure the member in the chair will be happy to claim responsibility for it. It is an importation of American ideas about property rights. There is already, in the Resource Management Act, section 85 for when land really cannot be used. This section 85 provision is rolled over at clause 105, so that is all that is needed. These regulatory relief provisions: they must go.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001945\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMy question is whether the member in the chair would like to agree with my amendments and be done with these provisions that are going to lead to a whole lot of churn in the system, a whole lot of extra plans, a whole lot of extra debate, a whole lot of extra litigation, a whole lot of extra valuations, a whole lot of diminished environmental protections, and a whole lot of ratepayer costs. We can solve it all\u2014it can just be gone.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022833b269a4426e84d76e10dbb8b51fc88\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001946\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022833b269a4426e84d76e10dbb8b51fc88\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (15:15)\u003C/span\u003E: There are a number of questions I\u2019d like to respond to, before we get on to regulatory relief. To the member Mike Davidson, who asked about spatial plan committees, members do not need to be elected members of a local council, they can be appointed, and that is because we envisage that people with sufficient technical capability and competency will be required, and they may not come from the pool of elected members. They will have voting rights, apart from the appointee from central government, who will not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001947\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI just want to close off that part of the debate we were having on fisheries. One of the reasons that we\u2019re shifting away from having regional plans manage fisheries is that fish can swim across regional boundaries. Fish are not necessarily going to stay within the regional boundary of the plan made for them. So putting firmly the responsibility for managing the environmental effects of fishing back where it belongs, under the responsibility of the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries and into the Fisheries Act, where it specifies that that is one of the tasks of that Act. That\u2019s why we\u2019ve done it. It means that no matter where the fish swim, we\u2019ll be able to look after them, wherever their habitat is. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001948\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I want to come to the member\u2019s obsession with the number 666. We never impugn another member\u2019s motivations here, so I can only assume she\u2019s a big fan of heavy metal, but her Amendment Paper 667, proposing to delete references to regulatory relief in the system, will not be accepted, and I\u2019m going to explain why. For far too long, the cost of imposing planning controls that have public benefits\u2014whether it\u2019s protecting outstanding natural features and landscapes, protecting areas of high natural character, heritage overlay, and sites of significance to M\u0101ori\u2014have been borne by the private property owner. The member proposes that those costs will instead be borne by councils. Well, they\u2019re already being borne in the system. What we are doing is making it very clear in the new system that where councils seek to impose those types of planning controls that have a public benefit, then they will be faced with justifying the cost, with seeking the approval or acceptance of the private property owner, who may wish to voluntarily accept the benefit of a heritage overlay or a heritage planning control over their property, for example. But if they do not, then councils will have a number of options available to them. They will be able to offer regulatory relief in the form of cash, or additional planning permissions, additional planning flexibility, so that a property owner might be able to develop another part of their property to a higher intensity or another property that they own to a higher intensity, or rates relief.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001949\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, it is true that it will take councils some effort, firstly, to accept that they are faced with the consequences of applying planning overlays on private property, where they never have been. They\u2019ve been able to use this thing\u2014a highlighter\u2014to colour in maps. I met a property owner up in Taihape. She was a widow who had responsibility for the family farm after her husband died, and she was shocked and anguished to receive a letter saying 75 percent of the property would be covered by an outstanding natural feature and landscape or a significant natural area. What that meant was to the property value and to the ability to use it for farming was potentially tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs to apply for consents for things that previously had been a permitted activity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001950\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019re going to force councils to face that cost and to be very clear in the new system that they will only need to protect matters that have high value, that have significance, and that there will be a standardised test at a national level to help councils, to guide them as to how to apply those tests and the same\u2014when it comes to regulatory relief\u2014standardised approaches to help the councils. But this cost is there in the system right now. We cannot hide it. It falls on private property owners. In the new system, we\u2019re going to make sure it\u2019s revealed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022 data-id=\u0022c5f7eba0cc0067278c20a038aac3e99a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001951\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c5f7eba0cc0067278c20a038aac3e99a\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON (Green) (15:20)\u003C/span\u003E: Kia ora. I just wanted to follow up on my colleague Lan Pham\u2019s point around marine protections and just ask a brief p\u0101tai to the Minister around the transition, and whether, following the transition, those marine protected areas such as us in Northland will exist. Or will they cease? And then with these amendments that have come forward, what consultation or consideration has the Minister and officials undertaken with Te Uri o Hikihiki, Patukeha, Ng\u0101ti Kuta of the Bay of Islands\u2014so, the tribes of the North\u2014who worked really hard and advocated alongside community for these marine protection r\u0101hui tapu areas to be installed? Will they exist afterwards, you know, with the transition? If not\u2014oh, OK\u2014why? But also following transition, if they are to exist, will they still exist in the same form? Kia ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u0022499af16928418326084b1924384bae65\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001952\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022499af16928418326084b1924384bae65\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (15:21)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to pick up on this novel and controversial topic of regulatory relief. There\u2019s a lot in this, and in sort of opening, and picking up from Rachel Brooking touching on this, I want to make it really clear that the majority of submitters\u2014and these are literally the words from the departmental report\u2014\u0022of the submissions that touched on regulatory relief, nearly all expressed opposition. So this was across councils, it was M\u0101ori, it was environmental and community organisations, it was heritage groups, it was resource management practitioners, it was legal organisations and individuals. I can appreciate the theoretical place where this has come from because there are absolutely those nightmare stories out there where individual people have found themselves to have quite significant barriers put in place on their land.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001953\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ENow, the question, and why I think there\u2019s been such strong opposition to this is: what is the response to that? And this response is very extreme. Not only is it extreme, but it has been expressed clearly and time and time again by all of these submitters that it is unworkable. Not only is it unworkable in a bureaucratic sense but it clearly has been pointed out that it will result in an erosion and loss and degradation of biodiversity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001954\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022596cf5a2942e730c410addfca21d732d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Can you come to your question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001955\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fec39d9473e22ce305ba6a8e4248db12\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, sorry, Madam Chair. Why I really need to provide that context is because I\u2019m going to the questions, but that is what was so clearly established through the select committee process. I think it\u2019s really important to touch on that to frame the questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001956\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen the Minister just said then that the system would only protect high-value areas and those areas of significance, this is of absolute importance to the questions because it\u2019s admitting that we will lose biodiversity. Because a lot of our existing biodiversity isn\u2019t big, national, native forests at a landscape scale; we\u2019re talking about small scale dry land biodiversity, patches of k\u014Dwhai here, patches of wetland there. They are not in themselves significant, but they are absolutely important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001957\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELet\u2019s pick up first on the bureaucracy of this. I want to pick up on the very helpful outline that Environmental Defence Society (EDS) has put out there around what it actually looks like to try and implement this regulatory relief framework. They talked about the fact that even before any protections would be put on the table, the council would have to assess, at a property level basis, 24,000 private properties across the region that would be subject to a planning rule to which regulatory relief might apply.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001958\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, my question for the Minister is how are those councils\u2014and Auckland Council is at one end of a spectrum, right? Because we know that most of our biodiversity is with these smaller councils, areas like the Waitaki, areas like Mackenzie, which have very low ratepayer bases, but they will be having to fund, before they even get to the point where they are proposing these regulatory relief rules that might actually protect areas of biodiversity, they are having to go through these processes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, what EDS points out around it is that they need to assess these on a property by property basis. This is going to be an absolutely crippling burden on councils, and now on top of this\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001960\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d47d8842d8ae6aa26f587a5f995878f0\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The member\u2019s time has expired.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022ac86740ee0060400ba14f8daab017b6e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001961\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ac86740ee0060400ba14f8daab017b6e\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (15:26)\u003C/span\u003E: The member may well be right that many submitters to the select committee were concerned about the cost, the burden of having to identify these qualifying matters at private property level. Well, let\u2019s be clear, these costs are already being borne. They\u2019re being borne by the property owners who have restrictions, often applied with very, very vague information based on aerial photographs, based on assumptions made from the farm gate or in the case of trees in Upper Hutt. I had a letter from my constituent who said, \u201CThere\u2019s a tree hanging over my house. I can\u2019t get rid of it because it\u2019s going to cost about $10,000 in consent fees and arborist fees, and I can\u2019t afford it.\u201D How on earth is a pin oak that is probably 30 or 40 years old end up being such a cost to private property owner? That\u2019s what the current system allows.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001962\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOr a woman who\u2014I know Minister Chris Bishop has referred to a number of times\u2014in Lower Hutt who was told that even though their mother is disabled, putting a wheelchair ramp and putting in some modern lighting so should actually see her way into the home when she gets home in the evening\u2014not allowed because the house is heritage protection. On what basis does the member and all of those people who submitted think it\u2019s acceptable to impose those costs for so-called public benefit on private property owners without any tension?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001963\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m going to come to answer the member\u2019s questions, and we\u2019re going to have a bit of time on this, if the member seeks to have more calls. So let\u2019s be clear: in the new system, the burden that many of these organisations claim will fall on them, will actually be lighter. Because by lifting up what we consider important to be significant or high value, actually a lot of what the member might consider to be of some value will not need to be considered. So the burden on those carrying out these evaluations will be lighter and there are many options. Because when I think about the farms that I\u2019ve visited, and you know, lifestyle blocks up in Whitemans Valley, not far from here in Wellington, where people have chosen voluntarily to enter into covenants to protect indigenous biodiversity, to protect wetlands on their property, that will still be available in the system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001964\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAgain, when councils have undertaken an evaluation of whether these qualifying matters applied to private property, in the first instance the private property owner will be able to accept the imposition of a proposed planning control, and without seeking relief; they might say \u201CThat\u2019s fine. We like that patch of bush on our property. We\u2019re quite happy to see it protected in that way.\u201D When I hear the conflation of the problem\u2014\u201CIt\u2019s a burden, it\u2019s expensive\u201D\u2014well, look, councils have done a whole lot of this planning from the desktop. They\u2019ve imposed these costs on people and they face none of their own. So now they\u2019re going to have to hold up a mirror and actually ask themselves, \u201CDo we really believe this is significant or outstanding, and if so, are we prepared to enter into an agreement with the private property owner in order to protect these public values?\u201D Remember, these are public values that other people apparently value. So if we\u2019re going to apply those to private property, then the private property owner gets to have a say, and they may well be eligible for relief in the new system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022 data-id=\u002211f0a7511cb6063b7becf4afd9d66995\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001965\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002211f0a7511cb6063b7becf4afd9d66995\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert) (15:30)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for letting me have this call, because I want to directly discuss the issues that the Minister has just raised, and I want to do it in a really practical way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001966\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c4f1d8b913acea410f2fe17f8a2b82ec\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Are you referring to clause 92?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001967\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b9cbc0dc456753c6ad6cdcaf9e227e9b\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I am. So in my area, I have specialists in landscape who have talked to me about their concerns about this bill. I also have specialists in heritage. My understanding from law school and land law was when we pick up property, what we\u2019re picking up is a bundle of rights. Those rights will differ in different circumstances. If I buy a piece of the Mackenzie Basin, I\u2019m buying a beautiful property, but I know it\u2019s important to the people there, because they\u2019ve already significantly signalled that that property has value. Now, it might not be what is called \u201Coutstanding landscape\u201D under this bill. It might be on the hills below, and that\u2019s how it was explained to me by one of the landscape experts that I\u2019ve seen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001968\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, when I pick that up as a farm, I don\u2019t expect to be able to build the same kinds of things, because it\u2019s precious to its community, and I pick it up at a price that actually resonates, and it is responsive to the rights and the limitations on my rights. So it is the common that has decided the value. When a Minister comes along and changes everything up in the Mackenzie Basin so that, now, a council in that area will have to compensate the landowner, aren\u2019t we transferring\u2014this is quite a philosophical question\u2014a new property right to that party, so that they can now do anything they want with that property, or the community has to pay? So we\u2019re paying twice, because that land has already had a value that\u2019s reflective of what it can be used for and what it can\u2019t.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001969\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, if I just take an example in my own neighbourhood of something with high historic value, it may not reach the threshold of, again, being at the extreme end, but it\u2019s valuable to the community, and it\u2019s often recognised as that. So those prices reflect it. I know that what the Government is doing is attempting to chill the whole policy of deciding these things as a community. But don\u2019t we have a right as a community to decide those things? Why on earth would we compensate someone who can anticipate that those things are of certain value to the community and already knows that that limit is upon it? Aren\u2019t we gifting a private property owner a whole new right? Isn\u2019t that what we\u2019re doing in this circumstance? Aren\u2019t we actually transferring property rights, which is absolutely consistent with a right-wing agenda, but is not consistent with my agenda or the needs of my community.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001970\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI already in my area have building up. I already have more intensification than most of the communities that are represented in this House. I\u2019m glad to do it, but I do expect some sort of control on it when, in fact, there is an issue where my community values something, it\u2019s valuable to the community. Why would I pay the member if he owns and if he buys that property for the right that he didn\u2019t have yesterday? Why would I be paying him for that? I cannot understand that logic as to the economic value, when the economic value is determined by the bundle of rights that that owner had at the beginning of the process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001971\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cb3c07be19fce35f1b03da3f28902946\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Have you got a specific question you want to direct?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001972\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002207a02c02ec791be378ec55e20f178854\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE\u003C/span\u003E: Those are all very good questions. So does he agree it\u2019s part of his right-wing agenda in the ACT Party? Is it, in fact, giving more property rights? Is there an economic argument that says that there is a lower economic value placed on land at the time now and, in fact, he\u2019s gifting economic value to whoever happens to own it? Is it something where the community has a right to, at the present time, stand up for itself and say, \u201CThat\u2019s a value to us.\u201D? And why shouldn\u2019t that be compensated if, in fact, it loses that right? Are you going to give everyone else in the community that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002263eff2670adfa59137e238184d918060\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001973\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002263eff2670adfa59137e238184d918060\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (15:35)\u003C/span\u003E: Just before we get to that member\u2019s question, I just want to correct the committee on a comment I made in relation to clause 71, appointment of spatial planning committees. I\u2019ve been advised that the Minister can choose or decide whether central government\u2019s member on the spatial planning committee has voting rights or not. That\u2019s in response to a question from the Green member Mike Davidson, so just making sure that that\u2019s clear to the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001974\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, let\u2019s get back to regulatory relief. The member Helen White makes an excellent point that if you buy the land, and she raised the hypothetical of a property in the Mackenzie Basin\u2014somewhere which is well-known for pivot irrigators and all kinds of fantastic primary production, although it is at altitude in a relatively dry area, they still get water and farm there. But let\u2019s assume, hypothetically, that the member was to, under the new system, when regulatory relief mechanisms are in place, buy the land with those existing, let\u2019s say, outstanding natural feature character landscape overlays already in place, then that member would be subject to a test, which I think in Latin is described as \u201Ccaveat emptor\u201D or \u201Cbuyer beware\u201D. In other words, if you choose to buy a property that has an existing control on it during the transition phase, then the purchaser will have accepted those controls. So there is no regulatory relief available in the hypothetical situation you describe.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENext: is this part of a right-wing agenda? Property rights are important in any functioning democracy and in any economy where people need to have certainty about whether the land they own, what the rules are, and if somebody\u2014a Government, a local government\u2014seeks to impose costs and controls on that land and on its development, they have access to some relief. Otherwise, the State could reach in and take your stuff at any time. This legislation\u2019s very clear: we are resetting expectations that if local government\u2014and the member mentioned a local community\u2014places a high value on public values, that those who value it and seek to control it should be prepared to pay for that benefit. That is not extreme, that is not an agenda, it\u2019s simply stating the obvious. If there are values a community wish to protect, and some of those values are on private property, and they have an impact on the value or the use of that property, then the community should willingly seek to contribute towards the protection of those values on private property. But if it turns out that community is not prepared to pay for it, then maybe they didn\u2019t value them as highly as they were assumed to. What this legislation does with the regulatory relief mechanism will reveal that. It will create a process where the values of some and costs on the others will be revealed. It\u2019s intentional and it\u2019s going to be better for everybody who owns private property, including those who enjoyed the values that the member has described.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022ae5114508acc6ddd736f0b1aba543da2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001976\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ae5114508acc6ddd736f0b1aba543da2\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (15:39)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Two quick questions in response to the member in the chair. One is: can he clarify\u2014I think this was his answer, so this is just a simple clarification\u2014that if there is an existing protection, say, an indigenous biodiversity protection, on someone\u2019s land, that regulatory relief will not apply to anything that is existing? That\u2019s one question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001977\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen the second question is: does he agree with, then, the premise, given what he\u2019s just said about private property rights, that one of the fundamental shifts in this piece of legislation is that the costs are shifted from private individuals to the community? Those are my two questions on that issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001978\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut then I think I could move on\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001979\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227114d56a5ed6eab1758ca9b70f88d726\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003ENo.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001980\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022da485801f468c0ddc900f49f1ffd49eb\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: No? I\u2019ll sit down before moving to Schedule 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022 data-id=\u0022393a609820d0adbbee026a9298e0e428\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001981\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022393a609820d0adbbee026a9298e0e428\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR (Labour) (15:40)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019ll just take the opportunity to follow on from Helen White, who raised what she thought was a theoretical situation; actually, it\u2019s a very real situation in the Mackenzie.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001982\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo the question to the Minister is: the reality, actually\u2014the proposed solar farms. So if we assume some landscape values across the Mackenzie, and I don\u2019t know whether they\u2019re outstanding or not. In fact, it\u2019s very unclear\u2014very unclear\u2014in the legislation as to who is going to judge whether it\u2019s outstanding or not and whether it will be a measure by which private property owners will be able to seek compensation from the council should the council decide that large-scale solar farms are not appropriate, yet the person bought the land, probably designated as rural land, with the expectation of being able to utilise that to put in place a solar farm. So that\u2019s one question: does the Minister think that compensation should be able to be claimed by the person who\u2019s proposing the solar farm but may be blocked because it may or may not be designated as an outstanding landscape?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001983\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf I can go back to the development of that very land, where it was purchased for farming purposes, but, actually, technology, which is called centre pivot irrigators, came along and allowed a change in land use. There are many who say that those centre pivots have degraded the landscape values of the Mackenzie Country. I\u2019m not making a judgment on that other than to say, in that scenario, should the council have said no, would the landowner have been able to seek compensation under this proposed legislation? What we have seen through the Resource Management Act in the past, and I suggest through this piece of legislation as well, is that we\u2019re very innovative Kiwis and we tend to get on and make changes to land use and change activities on land, and the thing that many have raised through submissions, I know\u2014I\u2019ve not been on the select committee\u2014is one of: in changing land use expectation, does that then entitle a landowner, a property owner, to compensation claims against the council? That is a very real question, not a theoretical one, because it\u2019s happening right now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022ca2852d7083e6f19638ae774a8255e3b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ca2852d7083e6f19638ae774a8255e3b\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (15:43)\u003C/span\u003E: In response to the member\u2019s question, who will develop the regulatory relief mechanism, it\u2019s intended to be developed as a national standard. The reason for that is because the Government intends that these processes not be bespoke and that they be applied consistently across the country. In order to do that, a standard will be developed. That is our intention.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001985\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019m not going to provide a legal opinion on the member\u2019s hypothetical about solar panels and farms and change of land use. The intention of this legislation is to provide for people who wish to use their property to have fewer barriers when it comes to planning and consenting. What we are doing through a number of mechanisms throughout the legislation, including through regulatory relief, is to relieve the burden on property owners, that those who hold highlighters and pens and use the Resource Management Act we currently have to stop them doing things that that would be imminently reasonable, where the effects are well understood and can be managed, from getting in their way. We are focused on growth and change, and we want to unlock New Zealand\u2019s potential, and regulatory relief is just one tool in resetting expectations amongst planners and decision-makers and tilting the playing field, finally, level for private property owners.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022 data-id=\u002229a73beccaa71f7e6b9cf622a639da2b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001986\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002229a73beccaa71f7e6b9cf622a639da2b\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR (Labour) (15:45)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, just for the opportunity to carry on with that discussion. I suggest that it may be that people who have pens and highlighters will be replaced with people with quills, who used to be called lawyers. The question for the member\u2014well, the member states that there will be a standard across the country. The landscape values in the Mackenzie are quite different from those of south Westland or, indeed, of north Auckland.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001987\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dc0c0e33db0a3678726e133f68db820c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: There\u2019s not much pressure for a solar farm down there, though.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001988\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002225bc510712bcd964487d8115d534725d\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR\u003C/span\u003E: No. A lot of very good quality farming down south Westland.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001989\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ECan I just say that that subjectivity is indeed part of the challenge that faced the Resource Management Act and faced councils up and down this country, but I struggle to understand\u2014and maybe the Minister can explain\u2014how he will establish a fair and consistent landscape value that applies to the Mackenzie Country, applies to Punakaiki Rocks, and applies to the Ninety Mile Beach to ensure that property owners are dealt with equitably, which I presume is his theoretical approach to this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022bb62ba1c342050ad1d56da64d6de311f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001990\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bb62ba1c342050ad1d56da64d6de311f\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (15:46)\u003C/span\u003E: In response to the member Damien O\u2019Connor\u2019s questions, regulatory relief will be established\u2014the process will be established through regulations, and the standards I referred to will apply specific methodologies, say, for example, to outstanding natural features and landscapes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001991\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ENow, it\u2019s true that New Zealand has different geology, different features. This morning, we talked about karst landscapes, of which I\u2019m a massive fan. But let\u2019s be clear: we need to have a nationally consistent approach to determining what\u2019s significant. And it may well be that there are unique features in a particular district or region that are truly significant, and the legislation allows for those to be protected.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001992\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022762f19d43adb6162205aecdd6211fa26\u0022\u003EHon Damien O\u0027Connor\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair\u2014Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001993\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aaee004220c34038d2d0291047034090\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Is this a follow-on question?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001994\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228dd2b58c88d953cfbae7ba0add6544da\u0022\u003EHon Damien O\u0027Connor\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, it is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001995\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d3d2e31f626da1b3a2af35ee135dd11f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Damien O\u2019Connor.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022 data-id=\u00220d2fc66d434b6b8c95fb97642d0a6825\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001996\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220d2fc66d434b6b8c95fb97642d0a6825\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR (Labour) (15:47)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I raise it while you\u2019re in the Chair because you\u2019re very familiar with this issue, and that is of outstanding biodiversity, significant natural areas, actually, that everyone discredited, said they were absolutely outrageous, laid down in the Resource Management Act (RMA). So dare I suggest, the challenge was that people on the West Coast saw significant natural areas, areas of significance in terms of biodiversity, as insignificant because they had lots of them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001997\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ESo I struggle to understand how the Minister is going to just wave a magic wand and come up with a consistent policy when it comes to biodiversity that says that 2 hectares of native bush\u2014we call it bush on the West Coast\u2014in or around Auckland or in Canterbury that truly has significant outstanding features is insignificant in the hundreds of thousands of hectares in the West Coast. So how is the Minister going to solve the problem that we have faced through the RMA, how is this piece of legislation going to lay down one consistent approach to biodiversity and its significance in each and every region of New Zealand?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022fe3ec8c57765d32214f52144c7f4ca9a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001998\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fe3ec8c57765d32214f52144c7f4ca9a\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (15:48)\u003C/span\u003E: If I could just briefly address that, I\u2019ve been clear: we\u2019re going to adopt standardised approaches through regulation and through development of national standards. It may well be that most of the West Coast, which appears, as the member pointed out, to be covered in \u201Cbush\u201D is all significant, or it may be that, actually, when you apply a standardised methodology and you stand back a little bit, you discover that, actually, there are things that do need protection because of their significance or value. But potentially, a whole lot of stuff that\u2019s protected now doesn\u2019t need to be. But if the member would care to hold off any questions about indigenous biodiversity and so on until we get to the Natural Environment Bill, I\u2019m sure we could come back to it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022c6f1e27c90069bf02c7c4e1ce4029ae1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520001999\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c6f1e27c90069bf02c7c4e1ce4029ae1\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (15:49)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019ll just remind the members opposite that we\u2019ve not yet touched on the schedules. So it\u2019s my intention to go now to the schedules, noting that one of the schedules does, again, deal with regulatory relief.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002000\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut if we go to Schedule 2, because we have not touched on Schedule 2 yet, I would like to talk about clause 6 of Schedule 2. Schedule 2 is regional spatial plans\u2014and I know we\u2019ve had some discussion earlier about some things about spatial plans that are at quite a high level, and then we get the detail of these regional spatial plans in Schedule 2. At clause 6 it is \u201CDocuments and other matters to have regard to when preparing draft regional spatial plans\u201D. There are a number of documents listed there, and there are quite a lot of strikeouts and underlining in the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper, so it would be useful if the member in the chair could tell us if that\u2019s just some sort of grammar issue or if it is something more substantial, and what the substantial changes are in there. That\u2019s my first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second question is\u2014and I know my colleague from the Greens, Lan Pham, also has a published amendment on this section, but I have a tabled amendment and that is that after (m) in that long list to include (n), which is \u201Cin Auckland, Plan Change 120: housing intensification and resilience\u201D. My question is if the member would consider including that as a specific issue to be considered for the Auckland regional spatial plan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis aligns with another amendment I\u2019ve made to a different part of the bill that I\u2019ve raised earlier. My policy objective for including this here is simply to let what has been a very torturous planning process in Auckland run, really. Not going into the attributes or the deficits of Plan Change 120, but simply that there is a lot of effort and a lot of energy and a lot of money going into this plan change. How can it be enabled to not just be dismissed out of hand when this new process comes in, and how can it be enabled to run? That is my question on Schedule 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u00229b28b3b3f9237323b03a06c8e088e475\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229b28b3b3f9237323b03a06c8e088e475\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (15:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m pleased to be able to take a call on Schedule 2. I\u2019ve been looking at this. It\u2019s not an area\u2014unlike my colleague Rachel Brooking\u2014that I am an expert in. My questions are technical questions and I\u2019ll just refer to the specific clause number within Schedule 2 so the Minister is aware\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022833a11521fb0c5a8eefb19d282aaa547\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Sure, that would be very helpful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002284c372fcf630dda8adb47f7337965417\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. The first question I had in relation to Schedule 2 is in clause 2\u2014and actually in clause 3 as well\u2014we have references to preparations and changing of spatial plans, and I wanted to ask the Minister: would it be necessary to prepare as well as change under both of those sections? Because it appears to me they only apply to existing spatial plans. I just wanted to know the kind of legislative drafting reasoning for ensuring that both of those were included.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe next question I had was in relation to clause 4. This is a clause that talks about local authorities in a region working together. In clause 4(1), it\u2019s quite a strong word\u2014\u201Cmust work together\u201D\u2014and I wanted to know from the Minister: what steps would be taken if there was, say, a reticence from a particular local authority that was included in that definition and they determined that perhaps one local authority decided that they didn\u2019t want to work together, the steps that would be taken.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also wanted to know, in relation to clause 4(1)(f)\u2014that refers to \u201Cother matter prescribed in regulations.\u201D\u2014that would also be relevant to the process of preparing a regional spatial plan. I wanted to understand if the Minister could illuminate to the committee exactly what that would be.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI had a question in relation to clause 4(2)(b), which was in relation to the publishing of the process agreement. I wanted to know what would be considered \u201Cpublish\u201D in this instance. This is kind of an area which has probably recently changed in terms of our reliance on online sources and information. I wanted to know if that would simply be putting something on the website, for example. I\u2019m happy for the Minister to answer my questions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00222a4f4d48b9b3146720e2429129704561\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222a4f4d48b9b3146720e2429129704561\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (15:55)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I thank the member for the question. In terms of participation, it\u2019s quite clear what\u2019s set out there. I just come to the member\u2019s question around what local authorities must do. They must work together to prepare a document\u2014in other words, a process agreement as described in clause 4 of Schedule 2. It sets out a bunch of matters that they must do. And if they don\u2019t, there\u2019s a ministerial intervention power in this bill to respond to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll just come back to the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s questions around Plan Change 120 in Auckland. That keeps going under the Resource Management Act. It was a transition process, but it\u2019s going to keep going.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere was a question that Rachel Brooking had around Schedule 2, clause 6. It is essentially a formatting matter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn response to the member\u2019s question around her proposed amendment, there is no need to add more documents to the list because clause 6 provides that spatial planning committees can consider \u201Cany other document or matter\u201D that they consider relevant. We\u2019ve sought to avoid trying to be exhaustive in the way that we describe every possible thing that participants in the system have to do. We\u2019ve tried to provide them with as much flexibility as we feel they need when it comes to spatial planning.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022 data-id=\u0022e00f759c0496565eac8d5e7aa973cc77\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e00f759c0496565eac8d5e7aa973cc77\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green\u2014Rongotai) (15:57)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I did want to speak to my colleague\u2019s Amendment Paper to Schedule 2. Lan Pham has a published amendment to Schedule 2, which would have amended the bill that was reported back from the Environment Committee, but I feel that we are more debating the Minister responsible for RMA Reform\u2019s Amendment Paper 709. What this refers to is clause 6 in Schedule 2, which is laying out the documents and other matters that must have regard held to when preparing draft regional spatial plans. There have just been some technical drafting changes, it looks like. It\u2019s no longer Roman numerals, but letters in the subclauses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI understand the Government doesn\u2019t want to put reducing greenhouse gas emissions or responding to climate change in the goals of the planning bill, but in Schedule 2 already\u2014and in the Government\u2019s Amendment Paper\u2014there is a requirement for people who are preparing regional spatial plans to have regard to the climate adaptation plans, which is something that is a requirement for regions to prepare. It says\u2014this is page 280\u2014\u201C(h) any plan relating to adapting to the effects of climate change prepared by a local authority in the region;\u201D and they must also have regard to regional land transport plans, any Government policy statement or other document, land use plans within the district, the natural environment plan, the long-term plan prepared under the Local Government Act\u2014you get the picture.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think we heard very strongly from submitters at the select committee that it would make sense, since we\u2019re already requiring that they have regard to adaptation plans, that they should also have regard to emissions reduction plans. I suspect I know what the member in the chair Simon Court is going to say, but we do need to make this point explicit on the record so that the Amendment Paper from my colleague Lan Pham is number 731. I think we would have to propose a different tabled amendment to the Government\u2019s Amendment Paper, which is like the new version of the bill, Amendment Paper 709.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut what we would do is simply insert in Schedule 2 after clause 6(1)(h)\u2014 6(1)(i); insert into that list of letters\u2014a requirement to any emissions reduction plan prepared under section 5ZG of the Climate change Response Act 2002.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think that would make a lot of sense, because just last week there was a story in the RNZ online about how Government had to consider cancelling carbon auctions after policy changes tanked prices. So this just goes to show why we can\u2019t entirely rely on and regional communities can\u2019t rely on the emissions trading scheme (ETS) to take care of reducing emissions, because Government policy is chaotic\u2014at least under this current Government. It seems to be, while on the one hand they say, \u201CWe want to entirely rely on the ETS to reduce carbon emissions.\u201D, they also have made a series of policy decisions over the past few years which have mostly driven down the price of carbon, which makes it extremely hard for people to plan long term and why we\u2019ve had an ETS for two decades now and we\u2019re still not really reducing emissions, especially not from transport\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002270bb9d2c8d5fa0fa51290215f7345158\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Can you come to the question for the Minister?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226095f0f61c73f17417b24c4fdd6cbee3\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the question to the Minister is: will they consider at least putting in a requirement on regional spatial plans to take account of and have regard to any emissions reduction plan which is already legally required; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022784f4e929aed4ea6a05d1a10add6eccb\u0022 data-id=\u002225c75f972b1a1b2e62e8521ac63c3f4c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022784f4e929aed4ea6a05d1a10add6eccb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002225c75f972b1a1b2e62e8521ac63c3f4c\u0022\u003ERYAN HAMILTON (National\u2014Hamilton East) (16:01)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002214dc7f3d32ee44edce47ea34e2be7b2d\u0022\u003EHon Julie Anne Genter\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair\u2014we haven\u2019t even discussed Schedule 3 yet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002236ce0b64b1640485c4e557cec3dfec21\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: And I haven\u2019t ruled, so don\u2019t interrupt when I\u2019m already addressing another member. Mr Hamilton, it\u2019s a bit early. We\u2019ve only just started on Schedule 2. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022d90863763e40b9f6503b768717338ca4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d90863763e40b9f6503b768717338ca4\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (16:01)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a small question also on Schedule 2. I know I said I thought I\u2019d done my questions there, but then I saw a change to clause 4(1)(b), and that is that the word \u201Cunanimously\u201D has been struck out, and it\u2019s been replaced with \u201Cby consensus\u201D. So this is clause 4, \u201CProcess agreement for preparing draft regional spatial plan\u201D. I presume there might be some other changes like this. So my question to the member in the chair is: what does \u201Cconsensus\u201D mean? I presume in this context it does not mean being unanimous. Being unanimous means that everybody agrees, but some people think consensus means everybody needs to agree; some people say it\u2019s just some sort of majority. If it is just some sort of majority, what sort of majority is it? So if the member could answer my question about consensus, that would be useful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00221f093025e848bd5651986257a1981d9b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221f093025e848bd5651986257a1981d9b\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:02)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019ll respond to the member Julie Anne Genter\u2019s question and the member Rachel Brooking\u2019s question. Rachel Brooking, consensus means what it means in the dictionary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo the member Julie Anne Genter, the reason that climate adaptation plan is noted is because it\u2019s important, in the context of understanding natural hazard risks, to make sure that when preparing a spatial plan, there is a relevant climate adaptation plan that identifies natural hazard risks should be incorporated into a spatial plan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn response to the member\u2019s question about including some of the things around emissions reduction plans, well, parts of emissions reduction plans can be considered when developing a spatial plan. As I mentioned before in response to a previous answer, committees can consider information that\u2019s relevant. But in the case of emissions reduction, because of proceeding clauses and decisions taken, spatial planning committees will only be able to consider the positive effects of emissions reductions in their plans.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u0022b34a43bb82e6a7e5ab7275cf4a67ead1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b34a43bb82e6a7e5ab7275cf4a67ead1\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (16:04)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just had a few more questions on Schedule 2 along similar lines to my previous questions\u2014so just kind of technical questions. Apologies for not being a specialist in this area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI had a question around clause 4(4). This talks about \u201CThe spatial plan committee and local authorities \u2026 must comply with the process\u201D. I wanted to know what happens during a period of noncompliance. I just had a question in relation to clause 5 of Schedule 2. That talks about inter-regional content and sets out quite a prescriptive process that needs to be gone through when there is inter-regional collaboration. I wanted to know, is there a limit to the size of the regions that could work together under that inter-regional collaboration? What was the member thinking in terms of the maximum size of the inter-regional collaboration? In fact, what would be the smaller amount? Would it be simply two regional authorities, for example, that could utilise that provision?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI just had a question in relation to clause 6(1)(a)(vii), which talks about the effects of climate change being prepared by a local authority in that region. I wanted to know to what extend would the regional boundaries need to be specifically only applied to that region. So, for example, if there was a weather event that affected, say, most of the North Island, would that be considered an effect of climate change within that region, or would that be outside of the region because it would affect a larger area?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other question I had was clause 6(1)(a)(ix), which talks about statutory acknowledgment. I just hadn\u2019t come across that term\u2014maybe it\u2019s a specific Resource Management Act term\u2014but I just wondered if the member could expand by what is meant by that, because that seems to be quite a wider term to be considered within that document. Is that a fair enough question?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002217bea66b27d0fbe6fe46c2859325ffaf\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: He\u2019ll be able to answer that question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227b575e7d16cac76e9653abc97e3b1d80\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH\u003C/span\u003E: Apparently, that\u2019s a very easy question that the member should be able to answer. So apologies for asking simple questions, but it is maybe that other people reading this bill have similar questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen I wanted to ask around clause 7. This looks at incorporation from land use plan in the natural environment plan. It says that it may incorporate any of the following, and it has what I would assume would be quite helpful information, including things like ecosystem health limits in the natural environment. I wondered why those were optional\u2014so why the member has chosen to use the word \u201Cmay\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe clause 7(2), there\u2019s a clause here that talks about the consideration of inclusion, say, when there\u2019s a natural disaster. So there could be, for example, a major earthquake or something, and that must be considered. I wondered why that was simply a consideration and not a more mandatory incorporation, given that on occasion these natural events could be quite disruptive.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo a few more questions just on Schedule 2, if I have time. In clause 8, there is a mandatory consultation that has to take place in relation to the spatial plan. I just wanted to know what the kind of ideal best practice consultation under clause 8 would be. I also wanted to know in clause 8(2) when the member talks about \u201CA spatial plan committee may consult anyone else\u201D, who did he have in mind when he listed \u201Canyone\u201D there?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI had some questions also in relation to M\u0101ori land and iwi authorities. In clause 9(1)(d), I wanted to know if an iwi authority didn\u2019t agree that the issues they raised had been addressed, if there was any way that they could challenges that; and, if so, how?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022027a49f4de834fa143a32b22def24d61\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022027a49f4de834fa143a32b22def24d61\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:09)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll just try and address some of those questions. The member would grant me some grace, because there were many questions. I\u2019ll try and do my best, but if I miss any, happy to come back to them. Firstly, when it comes to joint spatial plans, there\u2019s no limit on how many regions might want to get together and make them, but I think it would be unlikely to be more than two, but there is provision for more if they decided that it was necessary. We\u2019re comfortable we can trust councils around that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA number of other questions around pre-notification. What does best practice look like?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWell, we can leave that to guidance that, no doubt, officials will put together and provide in due course. There were a number of other questions. Can I just come back to the answer I gave on unanimity?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022784f4e929aed4ea6a05d1a10add6eccb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022775a364ddb7ea5657bc3f6799fda83d7\u0022\u003ERyan Hamilton\u003C/span\u003E: Consensus.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022712bf31487b27ef47567d3abff88baf0\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, on consensus. Obviously, there\u2019s a definition in the dictionary, but there\u2019s also a definition in clause 74B(5). It means general agreement or the absence of sustained opposition on any substantial issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002208b8e15296d58267026fae7fdd4b337d\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s helpful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c387ca016eb040fb8606f2bdce6b8f5d\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: Isn\u2019t it? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225c3d038268b43f87667ede82a4f53972\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224ca273df4037f879220808950e0b3493\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Is this a follow-on question?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002223879282adab5e79f9642371fe13c8f3\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: No, I was going to move to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e01c5c125b34c668717a97f078458388\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: OK. Lan Pham.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u00229fc6550fd00012a8c800a688005cbfdc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229fc6550fd00012a8c800a688005cbfdc\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (16:10)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to pick up on Schedule 2, and I\u2019ve got a number of amendments that I\u2019ll just refer directly to and move through those.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo the first is in Schedule 2, proposing to make a number of deletions, including clause 29 and 30 and change some wording in clause 32. The reason why I\u2019m proposing these things is the Planning Bill and the resulting plans, particularly when it comes to regional spatial plans and natural environment plans, these are going to be in a brand-new process where people will not have the opportunity that they have been used to in actually having merit-based appeals where necessary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe ideal, obviously, in this system, where the Government is going to\u2014the ideal for them is that everyone is just going to be aware that these plans are happening. Unfortunately, we know that that is not going to be the case. There are going to be genuine situations and issues of real merit that it would be helpful, when it comes to the integrity of the new system, when it comes to natural justice principles, to actually extend these appeals, not just to on questions of law but to merit-based appeals.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, in theory, this could be phased out, but I think this would be something really critical when the consultation of our communities with iwi and hap\u016B is so limited, this could be one improvement. So I\u2019d really like to hear the Minister\u2019s response to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second one that I want to touch on in Schedule 2 is Amendment Paper 721\u2014and sorry, that previous one was Amendment Paper 729. Sorry, I\u2019ve just lost my schedule numbers\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00220e258b9af3a01f598dcb3e156a67f592\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220e258b9af3a01f598dcb3e156a67f592\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:13)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, if the member would like, I can answer her first question while she recovers her paper trail.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn response to the question around what rights of appeals are there, when spatial plans are developed, they\u2019re essentially strategies, and they won\u2019t contain rules. So the concerns that the member raised in relation to spatial plans are unfounded. But when we get further into the regulatory plan-making, no doubt that question will arise again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe consultation requirements are set out in the independent hearings panel process. Merits appeals will only be available for decisions made around designations that then come into the spatial plan, and that\u2019s because of their impact on property rights. So if that helps, we can park it there and can back to the member\u2019s further questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d1ee5d6c6313c401cc5c8b99cc941dce\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: Great. Sorry, I just realised my other amendments are in Schedule 3.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229fa76f19b80a9438bd3093cb55eec64c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Honourable Camilla Belich. Sorry, Rachel Hunter\u2014Rachel Brooking. Sorry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u002237e0b471fa26fd4149d762774fbc2785\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002237e0b471fa26fd4149d762774fbc2785\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (16:14)\u003C/span\u003E: How many names\u2014ha, ha!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m going to move to Schedule 3 then, as well. I had an amendment published, Amendment Paper 709. If we go to Schedule 3, Schedule 3 contains many things, but at the start, it\u2019s preparing and changing plans in Part 1, before we get on to private plan changes and then legal effect of rules and then regulatory relief.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 1 is about this preparing proposed plans, which are very important, because, as the member just said, these are the things that can include the rules; these are the oil paintings, rather than the water colours.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002226f0896ddc18fea6b80984c8a08d33e4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry to interrupt. Could you just refer us to the Amendment Paper number?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022803fb468aa86d8cb46abad1a0f67dfb6\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Amendment Paper\u2014sorry, it\u2019s not a published one. That\u2019s why you can\u2019t find it. Sorry. My apologies. It was lodged at 7.36.07, and it is in relation to Schedule 3, Part 1 is what it starts off with. What it is about is who can submit on a plan, because, as I was just saying, in the scheme of things, these plans are the regulatory documents. They are the oil paintings. And these are where people will need to have appeal rights, and I think the member in the Chair just acknowledged that. So who can get to those appeal rights is very important, and you get to them by being able to submit on a plan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo what this Amendment Paper is about, it is about who can submit on those. So at clause 5, there\u2019s a pre-notification consultation on proposed plan. At clause 5(2), there is a \u201CHowever, a local authority is not required to consult a person or a group described in subclause (1).\u201D So I want to delete that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen, if we go over to clause 15, which is pages away, it is notifying proposed plan for submissions. At clause 15(1), there is this word \u201Ctargeted\u201D, so it refers to \u201Ctargeted submissions under clause 16\u201D, so we should delete that and then delete all of clause 16 as well, which is about notifying proposed plan for targeted submissions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen at clause 17, which is who may make submissions on proposed plan notified for submissions, to replace clause 17(1)(a), which at the moment talks about a clarifying person, to replace that with \u201Ca resident of the district of the territorial authority for a proposed land use plan prepared by territorial authority or the region of the regional council for a proposed natural environment plan or proposed land use plan prepared by regional council or an organisation whose objects or purpose relate to a matter addressed by the proposed plan, whether or not the organisation is based in the district of the region.\u201D I\u2019ll come back to that in a minute.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen at clause 20, I have another deletion of the word \u201Cqualifying\u201D in clause 20(1)(a) and also the deletion of clause 20(2), which refers to who can make a further submission.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, this is because this bill is really restricting who can make submissions and saying that those groups who have a particular interest in something like heritage\u2014I\u2019m wearing a heritage sort of outfit today\u2014that unless they live in the area, then they cannot make a submission. These are groups that can make very thoughtful submissions and very relevant submissions, so that is why I have this Amendment Paper to enable better representation of a wider range of things that are going to be in these plans, which are the sticky part of the system. So can the member tell me if he will accept that Amendment Paper and the widening of who can be involved in these plans?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00223f32483b0b07f608c2e993ff0624b170\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223f32483b0b07f608c2e993ff0624b170\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:19)\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019ve been very clear: we can\u2019t have every Tom, Dick, and Harry turning up objecting to stuff around the country. We are clear that\u2014just referring to clause 20(1)\u2014there is a limit, a qualifying criteria, on who can make decisions to people in a region or a district to who that plan provision applies. We have graciously accepted that there are some who have an interest greater than the public generally and they will also qualify.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI come back to the member\u2019s question around when the local authority is required to consult. There is provision for targeted consultation about small plan changes\u2014minor plan changes\u2014and that means that the local authority is not burdened with carrying out an extensive consultation when it can either target the people directly affected for consultation or has sufficient information to make a plan change based on information that\u2019s collected. As the bill states, they\u2019ve consulted the person or group or their representative on the matter within the last 36 months before public notification of the plan, and they\u2019ve advised them that information obtained from that consultation would also be used for that process. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u00223068cf2d53d8d9ae8edfa358cc052457\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223068cf2d53d8d9ae8edfa358cc052457\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (16:21)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. It\u2019s a really good segue from the member\u2019s comments into this Amendment Paper, which I\u2019d like the member\u2019s comments on, because he said we can\u2019t have every Tom, Dick, or Harry getting involved with these planning processes, and I agree. I think there\u2019s absolute merit in some of these changes that are proposed in these bills.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d5d74c23bdec97a1e5cf991361332d87\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Is the member referring to the same Amendment Paper that Rachel Brooking was referring to, or is there another?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022120086cba2ca67e3d07cea4eaf1c7363\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, my Amendment Paper that I\u2019m referring to is No. 727.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bfce405fe4ab5265fdc58403cd03d392\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: OK, thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002204072bab2b319845d48dcc4cca7a276f\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM\u003C/span\u003E: This is on clause 11 of Schedule 3, which is about justification reports. While I agree that, at the individual level there should be a higher bar when it comes to being able to change things and slow things down, and that kind of thing, what I am very conscious of, and I\u2019m sure the Minister and members will appreciate, is that there are genuine\u2014at a district, city, or regional level\u2014local issues and bespoke things that we want to be able to protect. I know that the Minister is very committed to reducing bureaucracy in the system, but the justification report and where it must be put in place seems to me to be overly bureaucratic, because, once you\u2019re at that planning level, councils will only be putting these in place where there is genuine community buy-in, genuine community push for bespoke rules.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMy amendment would be that we would remove these more onerous requirements for councils to put in these justification reports when it comes to regional plans. This would allow councils to more readily be able to put in place local rules and provisions that, for example, might defend the character of streets or regions or environmental limits without in fact getting caught up in an unnecessary and time consuming and costly process where they\u2019re having to justify their own local community needs. The Minister responded earlier when we brought this up specifically in terms of geological features like cast in Waitomo and what not, and he was very appreciative of those areas. This is simply about putting in place those requirements, being less onerous and the local councils being able to drive what makes sense for their local area. Would the Minister consider that? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022188495e9214d77d08c59ca27f103ce87\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022188495e9214d77d08c59ca27f103ce87\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:24)\u003C/span\u003E: Look, the member and I could talk about geology all day, no doubt, our appreciation of cast formations, as no doubt we could with the Chair; however, the reason the justification report process is onerous is intentional. In the new system, we intend there be far fewer bespoke provisions. Currently, we have 76 councils, 14 regions\u2014last count\u2014and over 1,100 bespoke zones around the country: urban and rural and commercial and residential. In the new system, we\u2019re going to shift to standardised zones. Councils will be able to pick from far fewer zones and apply them in a standardised way for a standardised process to their plans, of which we intend there be far fewer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EHaving an onerous justification process should they seek to depart from standardised zones is part of the tension of the new system. It is intentional, and while the member might wish to stick with 1,100 bespoke zones, the submissions we\u2019ve received through the select committee process and the pleading from our constituents is that we relieve them of the burden of having to work their way through all of these different zones when they get around the country building things. So we won\u2019t be accepting any further amendments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022c7fee74d119a101b11af2cd79af228ef\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c7fee74d119a101b11af2cd79af228ef\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (16:26)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m going to move on to Part 2 of Schedule 3, noting of course that this Part 3 debate that we\u2019re in now includes Schedules 2, 3, 4, and 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve got two questions. One is a general conceptual question about Part 2 of Schedule\u00A03, \u201CChange requests and private plan changes\u201D. My question to the member in the chair, Simon Court, is: why is there a need for private plan changes in the system if, as the member\u2019s been saying over and over again, the system is set up to be so enabling and so permissive? Why does there even need to be a private plan change process? Noting that private plan changes cost councils, which this Government wants to reduce the spending of, an awful lot of money. Why is this mechanism needed? That is the first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy second question is just in relation to a change at clause 53 of Part 2 of Schedule\u00A03, and then it comes across at clause 56 as well. This is that a request for that private plan change that I\u2019ve just been discussing, rather than it going to the Environment Court\u2014Environment Court is struck out and it now goes to the planning tribunal for review. That\u2019s seen in clause 53 and over the page, and I\u2019m wondering why the decision is going from the Environment Court to the planning tribunal for a review of a private plan change. I don\u2019t remember where in the world the planning tribunal sits in this legislation, but given that the planning tribunal\u2019s general approach\u2014and it\u2019s one that we haven\u2019t opposed\u2014has been for simpler issues, and plans generally tend to be complicated, I would have thought that the Environment Court was the more appropriate forum for hearing a review. If the member could explain why that change has been made, that would be useful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002281cd74250fd4af2a665d98866ce14b03\u0022\u003EHon Julie Anne Genter\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b17ddf7082678552d82598c5f25b7739\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Julie Anne Genter. I\u2019m sorry, I thought the member in the chair was going to stand, but you can ask your question first.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022 data-id=\u0022b9e05124ede6fdd8f58814ce36f7611d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b9e05124ede6fdd8f58814ce36f7611d\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green\u2014Rongotai) (16:28)\u003C/span\u003E: I can see that the member is getting information from officials, but I did want to make sure I didn\u2019t miss out on the opportunity to speak to my amendments to Schedule 3.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne is about the issue of\u2014and we heard a lot about this at the select committee. In clause 24(2) of Schedule 3, it says, \u201CThe panel may choose not to hold a hearing \u2026\u201D\u2014this is about independent hearings panels and their ability to not hold a hearing even if submitters request to be heard. I\u2019d say overwhelmingly people thought that was not a good idea. We understand there might be some exceptional circumstances where they\u2019re making very small changes, but, in the vast majority of changes, we think the panel should be holding hearings if submitters want to be heard in person. That\u2019s my amendment\u2014it\u2019s a proposed amendment and it\u2019s a tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen there\u2019s another one on Schedule 3, clause 26, about the Minister\u2019s involvement in independent hearings panels. We\u2019re proposing to remove clause 26(2). That\u2019s on page\u00A0316 of Amendment Paper 709. The reason for this is that broadly there was concern about ministerial overreach in this whole approach, of it really taking away power from the regions, from local communities, and putting it very firmly in the control of the Minister of the day. Given the Minister is already responsible for setting national instruments and other system matters, we don\u2019t believe that there should be direct ministerial appointments to independent hearing panels or to regional spatial planning committees. This is really important. The Minister already has a ton of power and ability to direct what\u2019s happening through national directions. Those are two tabled amendments to Part 1 of Schedule 3, and I\u2019m wondering if the member in the chair, Simon Court, can comment on both of these issues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022df7a8cbef0156b32b1a969927163c91d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022df7a8cbef0156b32b1a969927163c91d\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:31)\u003C/span\u003E: If I could just respond to a couple of questions. Firstly, why are private plan changes needed? Because a landowner might be ready to move to a new land use before council is ready to carry out a wider plan change. That\u2019s why they need it. It\u2019s simply a carry-over from the Resource Management Act. If we were not to provide for them in the new system, that would reduce the flexibility and the agileness and the ability of landowners to respond to the need for different land uses. The question around the planning tribunal: it\u2019s an administrative decision on a process matter. It\u2019s not a substantive decision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI just want to come to Julie Anne Genter\u2019s questions around a hearings panel and the Minister\u2019s power to directly appoint Government officials on to a hearings panel. It\u2019s important, if the Minister chooses specific matters in a region\u2014say, Government might be a significant investor in transport infrastructure, for example, or have a significant interest in particular matters in the spatial plan process\u2014there is a representative from the Minister in that process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c995b6a81335637bd32ae144c2690d28\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m going to take a call from Rachel Brooking and just take some\u2014you\u2019ve moved on to Part 2 now? I\u2019m just making sure that everybody\u2019s happy that we\u2019re now on Part 2. It just helps the process if we know the flow.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222d5e21faa57fc6cc3939248741bf1e59\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. Well, I was going to move even further. I didn\u2019t have anything on Part 3\u2014yes, going to Part 4.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b9a66a45e2a63a9a52f4b8a17be64726\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Can I just ask Arena Williams which part you are on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022916560d289db4d1ac38a9d6b2437eccc\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Part 2, but I\u2019m happy to keep moving.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fd84451bde23a5e876f3007c9e423d0a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: OK. We\u2019ll keep moving, then, if you\u2019re happy to keep moving. We\u2019ll take a call from Rachel Brooking.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022232055e7f2aef6041268e06e805703f2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022232055e7f2aef6041268e06e805703f2\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (16:33)\u003C/span\u003E: OK. Thank you. Mine is actually quite a simple call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a2d735311dd39613dba67242be9e8cc5\u0022\u003ECatherine Wedd\u003C/span\u003E: Subpart.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022184b975822141e106bada1ed2b5d53dc\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: No, it\u2019s Part 4 of Schedule 3, so it\u2019s not the subparts. It\u2019s different wording in the schedules, but we\u2019re still on Schedule 3, and we still have Schedules 4 and 5 to go.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s actually quite a brief comment from me. I know other members will have more to say about Part 4, but I just want the member to\u2014well, one, remember my Amendment Paper 667, which deletes this part. Also, if you look through these provisions in Part 4 of Schedule 3, it creates a complicated web of frameworks and systems and process. I just want to ask the member a very simple question. Does he think this will lead to a lot of work? It\u2019s that simple.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002296653e5fbce6c61126cb248b5a13db92\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002296653e5fbce6c61126cb248b5a13db92\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:34)\u003C/span\u003E: We canvassed regulatory relief extensively. The committee can refer to my previous answers on this matter. There will be work required. We\u2019re introducing a new system. It\u2019s very clear what the intention is that, when councils seek to impose controls on private property to protect public values, there needs to be a conversation with the property owner about whether they will accept those controls voluntarily or whether council needs to offer some form of relief, which could be rates relief, it could be additional development rights on another part of the property, or it could be cash. In the absence of that tension, councils can apply\u2014as they have done under the Resource Management Act\u2014overlays that restrict the use of property without any tension or facing any costs of their own. That ends when this legislation passes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u002256a6121358b2a011d6f36439aaa9aacb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002256a6121358b2a011d6f36439aaa9aacb\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (16:35)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Here we are at the regulatory relief part, and it does not matter if the member in the chair, Simon Court, says he has addressed these questions, because this is one of the most significant parts of the most significant reforms that this Government will make in this term, so it is right that we discuss how each part of it will work when this might be referred to as the \u201Ckill your darlings\u201D part of the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EEverything that we think of as a public good within the resource management system, whether it is significant natural areas, whether it is the viewshafts that members of Parliament around the country are campaigning to defend, whether it is areas significant to M\u0101ori or indigenous biodiversity or heritage\u2014those are the things which are affected by this part. They are still operative in this law. It is still appropriate that some of these things are given effect, even in the most property rights - specific version of the world, because otherwise you would get weird and wacky outcomes. The member in the chair knows that, and so there is going to be a significant amount of work that needs to be done to make these parts operative.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy question, first, is around the M\u0101ori rights and interests that we\u2019ve been having a discussion about, about the spinning top, where the weight is at the top for a Minister to set directions and that those are meant to be preserved in the system. The simple question at this point for the member in the chair is: given they have a sort of special place in the hierarchy of decision making, even though they\u2019re not what we would have done, the Minister has arrived at a sort of compromised position where it\u2019s quite unclear in the proposed framework, if they are given effect to at the top level, how then the framework is meant to apply to them. We have gone through the select committee process, we have gone through public consultation on this, and it is still very unclear, given the Minister\u2019s answers earlier in the day and last night, how, say, sites of significance and w\u0101hi tapu are meant to be protected at the top level of the system and the regulatory relief is meant to apply to them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAlso, given the member in the chair\u2019s public comments around these things which suggest to the public that they are almost completely struck out, how is it that we are here now where we\u2019re still considering an amended version which has been amended at the last minute and nobody understands how a w\u0101hi tapu or how an urup\u0101 down at Mission Bay on the shores of Kohim\u0101rama is going to be given effect to in the new system? It is a real world problem, to the member in the chair, and I want him to take us through how the regulatory relief provisions are meant to apply in a situation like that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022e3586ed280c6a79d5af2bf2ebf2b4d95\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e3586ed280c6a79d5af2bf2ebf2b4d95\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, thank you. The member asked a number of questions. If we go back to the premise of the policy in the legislation, if a community agrees that it\u2019s important to protect a public value\u2014for example, a site of significance to M\u0101ori, which I understand she was referring to, and that\u2019s on private property\u2014that is available in the system to protect. Nothing changes about that, except that if the property owner does not accept that control voluntarily, the property owner may be, after an evaluation, entitled to regulatory relief if there are impacts on their ability to use their property. That\u2019s clear in the legislation. That\u2019s our intent, and I hope the member understands that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u00225e154ee988a9b7b3affc6b0b21d99c2d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225e154ee988a9b7b3affc6b0b21d99c2d\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (16:39)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I would like to run through a super practical example that we\u2019re aware of, just to understand and get clarity from the member on the practical implementation. Earlier in the discussion, he clarified that the 6,000 scheduled trees in T\u0101maki-makau-rau Auckland will not be scheduled any more but that about a third of them that have a heritage value, which is why they\u2019re designated as of exceptional value and are scheduled, will have a status recognised in the legislation. My first question is about the other two-thirds that are now no longer protected under the tree schedule, so around 4,000 trees there or thereabouts in T\u0101maki-makau-rau Auckland.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the ways that protection of environmental assets, like trees, works is that, because the starting point is a prohibition on you cutting down a 300-year-old P\u014Dhutukawa tree on your land that is scheduled, the protection forces the conversation. So then, the landowners goes, \u201CI want to build an apartment block here where that tree is. Can I get the schedule lifted?\u201D The conversation happens and, under general tree protection, 90 percent of applications for removal of trees succeeded. So, usually, for reasonable use, the protection will be lifted. What happens when you don\u2019t have protection is that the tree has no status, so, therefore, as of the passing of this legislation\u2014and this is one of the clarifications I\u2019m seeking\u2014the 300-year-old p\u014Dhutukawa tree that was previously scheduled, is that now without any protection? That\u2019s the first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second question is: if the council of Auckland decides that they want to develop a plan to protect those 4,000 trees, and they decide they will apply regulatory relief to protection of those trees, and the landowner just cuts down the tree anyway, what is the recourse of the council to punish the landowner for doing that? I\u2019m presuming there\u2019s no recourse, because the regulatory relief is a privilege of the landowner. That\u2019s the second question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe third question is: if the council get wind of the fact that the tree is going to be cut down\u2014well, the landowner wants to cut the tree down, which is usually\u2014the way that that happens in practice, Mr Court, as you\u2019ve alluded to, Parliamentary Under-Secretary\u2014 when someone goes to cut a tree down, Mana R\u0101kau get wind of it through an arborist who\u2019s given them a heads-up, and they go and sit in the tree until such time as a conversation can happen. Now, should the council get wind of the fact that a formerly protected tree\u2014300 years old, a p\u014Dhutukawa tree\u2014the landowner wants to cut it down, and the council contact that landowner and say, \u201CYou\u2019re entitled to regulatory relief for the protection of this tree, for not cutting it down.\u201D, who decides how much regulatory relief? Like, what is the amount of cash that that landowner will be offered? Let\u2019s remember we\u2019re talking about 4,000 exceptionally valuable trees that are currently on the schedule in Auckland. How much is one of those trees worth, to be protected. That\u2019s my third question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy fourth question is: when the landowner is offered those moneys, if the landowner says \u201CIt\u2019s not worth it, whether you\u2019re offering me 300 bucks or 3,000 bucks or $10,000 to protect that tree, I still don\u2019t want to protect it, I don\u2019t want the regulatory relief; I want the tree gone because I\u2019m going to build a granny flat.\u201D\u2014or whatever it is they\u2019re going to do\u2014what happens then? The landowner, presumably, has a right to refuse the regulatory relief and just proceed with removing the tree. That\u2019s my fourth question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022e6b95cfb1a76392fd3716a9ea3c9d26a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e6b95cfb1a76392fd3716a9ea3c9d26a\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:44)\u003C/span\u003E: Firstly, the member Steve Abel is correct to note that trees that have a heritage status will still be eligible for protection in the new system and, when they are on private property, the private property owner may be eligible for regulatory relief, but that\u2019s entirely dependent on whether the matters that are protected in the form of protection has an impact on the way they use their property.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m not going to speculate on the hypothetical situation that the member proposed, but I was very interested, in listening to the member\u2019s assertion, that 90 percent of applications to remove tree protection proceed. Isn\u2019t that the point of this legislation? Instead of using highlighters to protect things that turn out didn\u2019t need protection, we\u2019re actually going to have a system where councils that seek to protect these things are forced to justify it and confront the cost of that protection. If it turns out that 90 percent of the things they sought to protect didn\u2019t need to be protected, then I think this Government\u2019s on the right track and the regulatory relief provisions will fulfill our intention to actually provide some tension and give property owners a level playing field when it comes to having councils threaten them with a highlighter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe member\u2019s question around \u201CHow will regulatory relief be calculated?\u201D\u2014there are a number of criteria to be set out in regulations and subsequent standards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220e315f7b58345598b49635d6f385eb74\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I had called Lan Pham when Simon Court stood up, so I\u2019m happy to take a call from Lan\u2014is this a supplementary?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220a7537bf7ba5b8658d61f4408076c9d7\u0022\u003ESteve Abel\u003C/span\u003E: Mine\u2019s a supplementary, yeah.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b20d8e98abd94f898cf4981033fd63e2\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s OK. If he wants to reply, that\u2019s fine.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002205caa20cb52faee68dda6b489679de90\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, you looked a bit hesitant. OK we\u2019ll have a quick supplementary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u002202c7bfcffb8de55c8a82689c10db55d3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002202c7bfcffb8de55c8a82689c10db55d3\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (16:46)\u003C/span\u003E: There\u2019s a very key question in my ranking questions that you didn\u2019t answer. Just to clarify a point that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary made, I\u2019m talking about not the heritage ones, but the other two-thirds that do not have heritage status\u2014the 4,000 trees that are not protected for their heritage value but for their amenity or biological value. That would include the 300-year-old p\u014Dhutukawa tree. It\u2019s not protected for heritage value. I\u2019m talking about the ones that don\u2019t have a status under this regime, if the council decided to apply that status.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust to clarify, also, because you mentioned it: the 90 percent protection was because so few people applied to remove trees, except where they really wanted to, that, in most instances, it was a reasonable application, but, for the most part, the fact that there is blanket tree protection meant that most people regarded their trees as protected so didn\u2019t seek to have them cut down. That\u2019s the way that regime worked.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question that wasn\u2019t answered was: if the landowner chooses to not accept the cash money offered, they then are well within their rights to proceed with cutting down their tree. Is that correct?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022e1e5568b8938bc91d23eadb688bd6cdc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e1e5568b8938bc91d23eadb688bd6cdc\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:47)\u003C/span\u003E: In response to the member Steve Abel\u2019s question, if the regulatory relief that\u2019s proposed by local government is not accepted, then the property owner has the ability to appeal to the Planning Tribunal seeking determination.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u0022f455625e45a01ec300a4fde1ef9ff718\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f455625e45a01ec300a4fde1ef9ff718\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (16:47)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I really appreciate the member Simon Court addressing these questions, because they are not theoretical; they are going to be the implementation challenges of these very bills. I think the fact that we\u2019ve heard so overwhelmingly from submitters across the board\u2014and I\u2019m not going to relitigate how comprehensive that\u2019s been\u2014that\u2019s why it\u2019s so important to hear what is actually intended by these. So thank you to the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m just going to get specifically to questions. They really relate across\u2014so this is Schedule 3, it\u2019s really clause 65 and particularly 66A, which is about the councils\u2019 duty to prepare these relief frameworks in their proposed plans and also the considerations that they have to undertake as part of that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, the member has talked about the cost of these things. I think, what\u2019s been coming up very clearly from submitters when questioning the regulatory relief is: why isn\u2019t the Crown, if they\u2019re compelling councils to protect certain things\u2014so, like outstanding natural landscapes or like significant natural areas\u2014why is it the councils that are having to pay the regulatory to landowners? As we\u2019ve heard, time and time again, from the councils themselves, they are saying that this extremely demanding bureaucratic, complex exercise of the assessment on a property-by-property basis of the regulatory relief before they even get to the point where they can put in these rules, they\u2019re saying that is going to have a chilling effect on them even being able to protect the things that they\u2019re apparently compelled to protect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo is the Crown considering meeting those costs at all, and what will happen in the situations, which, again, we know are likely to occur, because the councils have said this is what is going to happen in our local area if you put these regulatory relief provisions in\u2014what happens when they cannot afford to pay the regulatory relief to the landowners, even though they will be legally obliged, particularly when it comes to protecting sites of significance for M\u0101ori? So how does that work? The Government has been really insistent that particularly the sites of significance for M\u0101ori will not be eroded under these Acts, and yet the councils are saying, \u201CWe will not be able to put this in place.\u201D What is the member\u2019s response to that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen it comes to the cost, the one aspect of evidence that the select committee had in the development of these bills was an assessment from MartinJenkins, which put the cost of regulatory relief broadly in the scope of $2 billion. But they said, you know, \u201CWe really don\u2019t know.\u201D When is the point at which the Government is going to work with councils to help them understand what the implementation cost of this regulatory relief provision will actually be?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019re really in the dark right now, and I think of all of those councils who are hanging on this and looking at the actual implementation, when they\u2019ll be coming to their annual plans and long-term plans. What can the member provide to them to give them some comfort that there is going to be central government support\u2014or not\u2014to actually deal with this and the implications?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022a068eeeb5660d451e5a294f0787692d9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a068eeeb5660d451e5a294f0787692d9\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the member for that question. It\u2019s a legitimate question. If the Crown seeks to impose rules and obligations, then should the Crown pay? But, on balance, it\u2019s actually councils who develop plans that will propose rules and overlays that impact people\u2019s properties for the specified or qualifying matters. They need to make determinations about how to implement the national standards that will provide direction methodologies about how to develop a regulatory framework and how to assess the impacts on people\u2019s properties. They will have to be weighing community values, because if there are places that communities value very highly, then it should be easy to make the case to their communities as to why those communities should be prepared to pay for the reduction in private property owners\u2019 ability to use their property.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EConversely, if communities say, \u201CHey, you know what? We think the council\u2019s gone way overboard in the things they seek to protect.\u201D If they want to protect the pin oak on my constituent\u2019s property in Upper Hutt, which is leaning over his house and he\u2019s been told it\u2019s going to cost tens of thousands of dollars to get rid of, maybe the community will decide that they don\u2019t want to pay for that. So there needs to be some tension in the system, and the best place to have that tension is at the local level.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe understand and accept a genuine concern about how the cost of relief is covered, and that is why it\u2019s envisaged, and provided for in legislation, that relief doesn\u2019t just need to be in cash; it can be in kind. It can be providing additional development rights on an impacted property owner\u2019s property or on another property that they own. It can be providing assistance with consents, for example, that may be needed. There are a number of ways that councils can meet their obligations to provide relief where that is deemed necessary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo while we absolutely accept the genuine concern that we\u2019ve heard from local government and others about the costs, there are clear pathways for councils to make transparent decisions, and there are lots of options for them to choose from in how to offer relief.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002234bc5912a8f0543235a466d054b0043e\u0022\u003EHon Members: \u003C/span\u003EMadam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d298e2357f60ca72ba721b267ddd573f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Arena Williams has been waiting for a call, but I\u2019m going to make it very specific. We\u2019re at the pointy end of this part now. Lan Pham, was yours a supp?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a76d99bb1874d1312e92b6c09fd64ac5\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022310a3140750c359c683d1500c7ab3e3e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: OK, I\u2019ll take that continuation from Lan Pham, and then I\u2019ll come to Arena Williams. We\u2019re just keeping it very specific now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002258af79d5820626f209548a3be821e38e\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: Very specific.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de0ee4fdaf613747d6a55d777eb0de3f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u0022a16db3c2a3b79c57b517a643e6349835\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a16db3c2a3b79c57b517a643e6349835\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (16:55)\u003C/span\u003E: Look, thank you to the member for his responses. I\u2019m particularly interested\u2014because he\u2019s saying cost is a very real issue\u2014about what the proportion is, and what the member\u2019s understanding is, of existing biodiversity protections, in particular, when it comes to the protections in place\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fefc7cf76adcfd2e30326ead5ef62823\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Is this in scope? Could you please point to the scope\u2014which clause\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225c04b637c29715b31c4efdc070deb7cf\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM\u003C/span\u003E: The scope is directly about considerations for developing relief of the framework in 66A. The scope is biodiversity protections that are in place now that will no longer be when these bills come into place. What proportion of those\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fa11d2b553a4d33520b6aa9ecc4735c4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve just been told\u2014actually, biodiversity is under the Natural Environment Bill, when we get to it. Is that what\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222e5f51522e79ec3d0e0d53104c383985\u0022\u003ESimon Court\u003C/span\u003E: Correct.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022180cff513e49d799e423b7b5baa00ae0\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM\u003C/span\u003E: No, sorry, Madam Chair. Thank you for clarifying this. We were told that the regulatory relief provisions would be open for both this bill and the next bill, and my concern, and why I\u2019m raising a lot of these issues here, is that when we get to the Natural Environment Bill, the response will be, \u201CWe\u2019ve already covered the regulatory relief provisions in the Planning Bill.\u201D If that\u2019s not the case, I\u2019m happy to hold off on these, but if we could get clarity, that would be great.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225df0ac2d61216a19cec3d89643df168c\u0022\u003ESimon Court\u003C/span\u003E: If I may?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002273282b7a3dc250c3c9afe0779c96acba\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. Simon Court.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00227ccc33cc76ebd67c13c279b947d29d4b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227ccc33cc76ebd67c13c279b947d29d4b\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:57)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll do the member a deal: cover it off here, and we\u2019ll skip over it in the Natural Environment Bill (NEB).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a238ba7371e8039ea59c2f0be78a2554\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: So, sorry, what direction does that mean, about doing a deal?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229a9a76f9cba1df72e074a2ddba2f77c0\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: If the member has a question about indigenous biodiversity and regulatory relief provisions, and if the member thinks that that\u2019s going to resolve all the questions that she might have had about it that might crop up under the NEB, we can deal with it here; otherwise, if the member wishes to raise regulatory relief under the Natural Environment Bill, in relation to indigenous biodiversity, feel free to raise it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223d9730923b20bddcfe32f6d33a6c3eea\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: OK, I\u2019m happy to raise it more fulsomely\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228021e33f1ef8ebf7d274ae440e026b00\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: It sounds like a sensible question. We\u2019ll leave that for the NEB.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ed1f4bb28e734a0bc2f64ef378847a35\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you; I\u2019ve got clarity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002283152817c1c295907b613095e58f775a\u0022\u003EHon Members: \u003C/span\u003EMadam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222e2f1605719107bc95971999b7d1556f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019d already indicated that I would take a call from Arena Williams.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u002278ebce60d8f23d6b94857452268bb1e7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002278ebce60d8f23d6b94857452268bb1e7\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (16:58)\u003C/span\u003E: I will roll up both of my questions in one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022beffe3d934dd47917bb8e35e2ab642d4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a1cda84e6d968db6dc092b2c05ab191c\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS\u003C/span\u003E: My first question is about clause 71; it\u2019s on page 339. To the member in the chair, I think he is one of the most vociferously critical members of cultural impact statements, and yet we have, basically, created cultural impact statements for capitalists here. So I want him to tell us how his new clause 71(2)(a)\u2014what part in the legislative schema sets out what is included in those assessments? The assessments, that are cultural impact assessments, which are now no longer part of the system, did have a regulatory schema which set out what was meant to be in them, but these don\u2019t. Effectively, they assess the same thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy colleague Lan Pham points out that the MartinJenkins report found a possible cost of $2 billion for this kind of relief. What\u2019s being assessed there is not only the value of the public good of these arrangements, which are in place already, but also the potential costs to landowners. Both are the same sorts of assessment, so is he going to rely on the old cultural impact assessments to set out what is meant to be included in these assessments, or is he going to create, in another set of regulations which are not mentioned here, the kinds of things which will be included in those assessments? Are they intended to be desktop reviews, or are these intended to be things which council commissions from experts, who will probably be the same experts as those undertaking the cultural impact assessments?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also wanted to ask him this in relation to clause 71(3) of Schedule 3. Now that he\u2019s made that a prescriptive approach and it\u2019s not mandatory considerations, it\u2019s just mandatory inclusions, my first question is this: in clause 71(3)(a) in his change, where he deletes \u201Cconsider\u201D and makes \u201Ctreat\u201D the operative verb, why is it now challengeable by judicial review\u2014because that is the effect of his change. He has created a system where, if decision makers do not treat the impacts in a similar way, either their decisions are open to review under his clause 76, or they are open to review by the High Court. Firstly, which one is it? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESecondly, if he\u2019s created this in the system, he will know that that will add on costs to councils because of the significant risk of review. That was something which cultural impact assessments were never open to, and yet they did proliferate paperwork in a way that he himself would be displeased with. So I want to understand just how much bureaucracy is in the system because of that seemingly meaningless change at paragraph (a). \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also want to ask him, then, at clause 71(4)(a), when these notices go out to the community, he\u2019s made the case sound as if it will be very easy to notify the public why they are being considered for regulatory relief, but he knows that in many communities, this will cause an outraged and inflamed debate. It is one that many communities have had to go through with something like the debates on M\u0101ori wards, which, frankly, have been divisive in those communities in a way which is completely unacceptable for the use of public power, and yet this is embedding in the public system these kinds of debates, which make people mistrust their neighbours and dissolve some of those relationships which make our towns and our regions work well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is literally a notice which will say, \u201CWe are taking away something important to you, and the winner is the local hap\u016B.\u201D That is a really disappointing part of this legislation, and the Ministers that have made these decisions know exactly what those notices will have as their effect. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt punishes small councils, as Lan Pham has pointed out, but it also punishes the biggest councils, who will either need to send out lots and lots of these notices, or they will simply not be able to do that at all. We have the Auckland Council which, for instance, is making transport decisions at the rate of 160 every week, and\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225b840754f65f3a259932de381750be8d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Question?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022efff052a2b255671080bd5368b54c883\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014I\u2019m told this as the chair of the Regulations Review Committee. How will it make those decisions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ENow, to clause 76, \u201CReview of decisions granting regulatory relief\u201D. When the \u201CReview of decisions granting regulatory relief\u201D panel is engaged, what is the scope of its review? Is it just the scope that\u2019s within his provisions at clause 71, or is it the full scope of the decision-making spinning tops that we\u2019ve been discussing? Are they able to consider the goals back in clause 10? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00226d5526d32650584ddcee6842f4d4178b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226d5526d32650584ddcee6842f4d4178b\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (17:03)\u003C/span\u003E: Let\u2019s be clear: it\u2019s the plan-making process where councils identify the matters that they seek to protect, whether they\u2019re sites of significance to M\u0101ori and heritage, or outstanding natural features in landscapes, for example. In clause 71 of Schedule 3, which the member Arena Williams began her question by referring to, it\u2019s very specific that a local authority must \u201Ccarry out a relief assessment [to identify] land in respect of which any specified rule or rules have a significant adverse impact;\u201D in assessing the impacts on a site-specific level, and if the member cares to read clause 71, all of the answers to her questions will be provided.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ERemember, this is an assessment. Clause 71 is a duty to implement relief, and it sets out how they carry out a relief assessment. It also refers to clause 66(2), which says what the local authority must consider: \u201Cthe extent to which [a] rule restricts or removes development potential; \u2026 imposes obligations for the protection, restoration, or non-use of land; \u2026 creates compliance costs or regulatory constraints that affect the reasonable use of land; \u2026 affects land value; and [prescribes] criteria that apply when assessing the impact of 2 or more specified rules on the same land;\u201D\u2014heaven forbid\u2014\u201Cand any other matters required by national instruments or regulations.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s all there. It\u2019s in black and white, and it will become black-letter law when this legislation is passed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022 data-id=\u00226a93a92631f42b03859cfa65001c6af1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226a93a92631f42b03859cfa65001c6af1\u0022\u003ECATHERINE WEDD (National\u2014Tukituki) (17:04)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002258141c6692d222739a2c07e3840bb91d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 709 amending clause 80 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments to the amendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228d13f13541b19fa52ea8be8a7b86d3eb\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 3 set out on Amendment Paper 709 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229c39c2591f9f0714ccc29ec01f0b1020\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendment to clause 63C set out on Amendment Paper 740 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c0760c29154a3fcf40058911d124de03\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, Steve Abel\u2019s three tabled amendments to Part 3 relating to protection of urban trees and urban tree canopy lend themselves to being grouped. I will put a single question on them, unless members indicate that they wish to vote differently on a specific amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Steve Abel\u2019s tabled amendments to clause 63C and inserting clause 67B(2)(d) and (e), and 81(1)(aa), be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002263352667189b460a0a3062f5becf27f9\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, Steve Abel\u2019s two tabled amendments to Part 3 relating to the Wait\u0101kere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 lend themselves to being grouped. I will put a single question on them unless members indicate that they wish to vote differently on a specific amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Steve Abel\u2019s tabled amendments to clause 63C and inserting clause 81(3) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022801f8deff5394826fa1bae697dc0abff\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Lan Pham\u2019s amendment to clause 67B set out on Amendment Paper 678 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002257754d868b522cf37e88e92dc0a4fdf3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Lan Pham\u2019s amendment to clause 67B set out on Amendment Paper 715 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bf87d413cf895ab55f9fbb2554069b38\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Lan Pham\u2019s amendment to clause 67B set out on Amendment Paper 716 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022902eabda9ea9d8780dba1d261c9a2d9e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendment to clause 67B set out on Amendment Paper 692 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226997d8dc7dd32373fbd0fe8eeb1b4e3e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I know there\u2019s excitement building in the Chamber, but we need quiet during voting, please. The question is that Steve Abel\u2019s amendment to clause 67B set out on Amendment Paper 718 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002228b83a6dac1c5a4893fe1f9622b4a832\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, in accordance with the Business Committee determination that valedictories will begin at 5.20 p.m., voting will pause here. The committee is suspended and will resume at 7 p.m. Now, we\u2019ll just wait for Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EHouse resumed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a9afdf6694329e6e14d07eb006edea52\u0022\u003EValedictory Statements\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00226a1e20e8cc42b7fa66cc8e65a6799dd8\u0022\u003EMark Cameron\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225867a2cb9d9325d88381e7e1223c7816\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The House is resumed. Members, I\u2019ll indicate now that at the conclusion of the valedictory statements, the House will suspend for the dinner break and resume in committee at 7 p.m. Mark Cameron will be joining us online, so we\u2019ll just wait for a moment while that connection is established.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EHello, Mark. Have you got us?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d7b1e3b6fae744f19867175d7757ad7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e5ed55c7c1849fa0dda51ca4438cf2f\u0022\u003EMark Cameron\u003C/span\u003E: Hello, sir. How are you?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220e8383b5b55f1004a4d821d9b9e204f5\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Very well. That\u2019s not how you call. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ELaughter\u003C/span\u003E] You\u2019ve forgotten.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d7b1e3b6fae744f19867175d7757ad7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002223b59077e49b153ed8ec178f0b435073\u0022\u003EMark Cameron\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bec510d6deed41b4c46bc5c74fb7c60f\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No worries. Good to see you. I call on Mark Cameron to make his valedictory statement to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d7b1e3b6fae744f19867175d7757ad7c\u0022 data-id=\u00221c16e2f68f0c82fa17fc866d622fd6ab\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d7b1e3b6fae744f19867175d7757ad7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221c16e2f68f0c82fa17fc866d622fd6ab\u0022\u003EMARK CAMERON (ACT) (17:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you very much for your kindness, sir\u2014and all of you, for that matter\u2014for allowing this brief amount of time to talk about my time there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI didn\u2019t think I would have the wherewithal to write this speech. My illness attached to my certain frankness a brevity\u2014sorry, brevity; I mean frankness and candour I thought would be unappetising. Dialysis is a hell of a thing. I\u2019ve come to learn life humbles us all in the end. None here are exempt, me included. We all have our shit\u2014as we say in rural New Zealand\u2014and I have certainly had my fill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne does, on these occasions, I think, thank the few people that have got them to this place, and I will do exactly that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EDavid: you\u2019re a bloody legend, mate, and a great mate. And I wish you all the best.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo the team, it has been awesome working with you; I love you. Nicole, you\u2019re an awesome sister\u2014the one I wish I\u2019d always had. To the rest of you, you\u2019re a fantastic group of Kiwis. Simon, brother, always be cautious of savings to be found in future lady products.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo Jodie, thank you, you are my best friend, my confidante, and the most driven, hardest worker I have ever known. Jodie, you make the world turn that little bit faster, and for so many reasons, I owe our success to you. My parliamentary career would not have existed without you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe story of our providence, how we got here, our uniqueness, our place in the word, I would like to speak of. I was going to start my contributions with positive affirmations. What of the stoics, their influence\u2014Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, perhaps Aristotle. Great minds of philosophy and polymaths. How these great minds moulded our world, our future, allowing us to look back to the past to understand, in fact, our future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOr more recent influences like John Adams and others, the culmination of the 13 colonies, and their formation of the constitution and creation, ultimately, of the United State. A true marvel of recent history.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPerhaps of the modern age: Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, perhaps Thomas Sowell\u2014the minds that understood the relationship between parties, buyers, sellers, and the dynamics of free markets, small government, less interference.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAll of these great minds have shaped our future, shaped Western democracy, and freed our minds to pursue intrigue, debate, and, ultimately, compromise. Democracy works, in large part, because of these great minds and what they brought to the table for our inquiring minds.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI, ultimately, thought of these things, but I think it\u2019s more important I talk about us: why we are here, the now. All of us, who we are, the 123 of us, and what we mean to this place. Mark Twain noted the most important moment in one\u2019s life is the day of your birth and the moment you understand why.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAfter all, as I say, we are an odd bunch: mostly civil, a group of people that bicker, argue sometimes, all the while trying to mount a debate and find compromise. Periodically, behaving like petulant children. But that\u2019s politics, I suppose. This is democracy in action, and it\u2019s ours to embrace, to be grateful for, to celebrate, for it is a fragile thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFew dare to venture to this place. I\u2019m sure we\u2019re all well aware and understand why. Equally, few get the opportunity to help change the direction of travel, where we go, where we choose to take our country, where we choose to take our people. Truly, I say how lucky are we to be here. We are the travellers for a better tomorrow than today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis political arena is our home. From Roman Senate to the birthplace of democracy to now, our freedoms and liberties are because of this place and because of you. Democracy needs New Zealand to work with the fortunate few who get to work in this place. You make it work because of your time and energy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy friends, I started my speech by saying life humbles us all. My recent experience can attest to that. I was the kid of five or six who knew what he wanted to be: become farmer, walk with giants, great Kiwi blokes like my mentor Neil Sidwell and the likes. I was going to be that kind of man. I was going to carry the world on my shoulders; be all I could be.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI remember, fairly recently, sitting in the Chamber, House duty, nauseous, kidneys at 8\u00A0percent\u2014most of you wouldn\u2019t have known this\u2014bugger all left, and I conceded that I was stuffed. How had this come to pass? People\u2014a lot of the people I came to represent. I protested, reluctantly went home, dialysis commenced\u2014it was May 2025. Man, I was pissed off. I had lost my boy to suicide and now this crap. Parliament is a people place, and it gave me purpose. I pined to be part of it. I needed to carry on. So I did dialysis in my flat and I went back to bloody work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn December, I suffered acute heart failure. Boot hill had become all too real. I was out. I was done. My transplant operation vanished and hope of returning evaporated. I prayed for context, understanding\u2014shit, hell, anything.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy friends here, all of you\u2014and I mean all of you\u2014the debate, the challenge, the ideas, what it meant to be part of such a special group slowly disappeared. I had to gravitate home. My dream of farming, my community, my love, and my country and country folk to become my motivation. At 20\u00A0percent heart function, I was told I might die. I affectionately told the people looking after me to bugger off, that there was too much to do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI picked up my 6-kilo oxygen bottle, walking frame, and set off. Hot laps around the ward, two, three, then whatever I could muster\u2014inches, after all, become miles. Unbeknownst to me, I was bare-arsed, which passers-by noted, \u201Cand into the flurry\u201D, I responded and said, rather embarrassingly, after this was pointed out. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EContext for all of us is everything. You know that you\u2019re in a fight when there\u2019s pressure, resistance\u2014and I was in a fight. Yes, I had become very humble, very quickly. I tell you this because I want to show what drives this. Why we believe\u2014why we in what we are doing. I look around the Chamber when I can and I know what I see: how humbling, privileged we are all to be there. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf I might, farmers don\u2019t quit easily. We\u2019re built out of the belief, trust, hope, and a passion to make tomorrow better than today. True desire starts in the heart with a single spark, and farmers have a belly full of fire. We know why this place has to work to find compromise: because our dreams depend on it to become a reality.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy heart is now 30\u00A0percent, and I\u2019ll be back. I have to. I have debts to pay to those that believe, as I do, that our way of life is worth preserving.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen I started this journey I knew my time would be limited. Our caucus, like family, counted down the numbers like a concerned family would. Each month the kidneys declined further. We all knew where this was going, and it was getting harder for me. I battled on. Farmers needed me, and I needed the purpose of being needed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe agreed farmers needed to be kept out of the emissions trading scheme, methane limits reduced, private freshwater assets managed better and in the hands of owners, and stupid winter grazing rules fixed. We came and we fixed those things. We had to. Our self-belief had been destroyed, and we\u2019d fought back. It was our fight to lose, and it wasn\u2019t going to happen without effort.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAny notion that feels good that taxes on food production is fantastical. \u201CGreenwashing\u201D hurts the poorest end of town first, and in a world where domestic prices compete with critical international trade and our essential export market, it is imperative cool heads prevail before we sign up to dumb crap that hurts our people\u2014the poorest people in our country. We can\u2019t have that. We\u2019ve got to grow. We must not be emotively biased.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo many rules have affected farmers. Hope and belief was dying because of it. At 8\u00A0percent kidney function, I could be a passenger in this reality or a proponent for better outcomes and change\u2014so here I am. Bugger off to the naysayers, I say. We challenge the nonsense, and we will restore pride in rural New Zealand. My battleground might have changed, but the farmers are grateful and passion is returning. We are remembering how much fun farming can be when we win. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn 1945, my grandfather returned back from the war a different man from years earlier, like so many, hurt in places so many of us did not see. Context won the argument. Those that lived it understood this. He was shot down in his third sortie, and, as far as I can understand, he did 30 more. What compels us\u2014people, humans; gracious, what compelled them, pining for home, their sovereignty, their peace? One can only imagine what they went through to preserve these things, our way of life, their bravery beyond measure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOur world is very different now, life vastly different. Our wars and struggles are different, but the fight to preserve our way of life has a parallel: that we fight for what we believe in, the things that bring context to our lives, meaning family and all of the above. For rural folk, I say the top four inches: our land, our animals, nature. My war is very different. I search for bravery, belief, hope, my way of life, home. I am determined that I will see those things again, as they were, in large part, everything to me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnd all of you\u2014the people that make these types of realities happen for all of us\u2014I ask: please believe, as I do, in rural people. They are worth fighting for. They are the economic spine of this country. And remember this: it is always hard to argue that fact when your mouth is full of their food.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo my country kin: stay farming, you bloody legends. I love you. You all go well and remember: don\u2019t head home and hunt for tucker until a good day\u2019s work is done, and never ever forget how important you all are, because this country would be on its knees without you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESigning off and God speed to you all. Thank you, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EApplause\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThank you, team. Thank you very much. Hugs to you all, and go well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022168a53f4fa5c871177ff095c06f463fc\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mark. Those words are received by us all with our very best wishes to you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00228eacd2b60255d6f5bf96c91a3dadf4fd\u0022\u003EHon Dr Shane Reti\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a25e392dd85c241ba7e0d16a9f11cc71\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I now call on the Hon Dr Shane Reti to make his valedictory statement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022673069789fe74d02ac517109c173ccbd\u0022 data-id=\u0022de0d88023576dd55f1fa3be800cc7e8a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022673069789fe74d02ac517109c173ccbd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022de0d88023576dd55f1fa3be800cc7e8a\u0022\u003EHon Dr SHANE RETI (National\u2014Whang\u0101rei) (17:33)\u003C/span\u003E:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003E[Authorised reo M\u0101ori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI rise today to present my valedictory address by way of reflection and by way of thanks.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to start by acknowledging all the party leaders I have worked under: John, Bill, Simon, Todd, Judith, myself for a week, and Chris Luxon. We come to Parliament to make a difference, and I hope, in some small way, that I\u2019ve achieved this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EToday, I will talk to a few highlights over a decade, some stories, some lighter moments that few will know, and hopes and aspirations still to be completed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EStarting in my first term, then, as a backbencher in a John Key - Bill English Government, there are a few moments that stick out as one gathers experience and learns a new role.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy first moment in that term was getting rid of Wicked Campers rental vans, with their disgusting, foul-mouth, misogynistic slogans. After the Brisbane-based company failed to turn up to Advertising Standards Authority hearings and failed my request to visit them in Brisbane, I commenced a campaign initiated by writing to all councils and persuading them that vehicle signage was actually a sign, and, therefore, their signage by-laws applied. They agreed. I followed this up by writing to Visa and MasterCard, suggesting that they really didn\u2019t want their cards being used. By the time we had Z Energy banning them from filling up at their forecourts, they were done. This presented a new backbench experience and a first taste of a national issue and national media attention.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second reflection in that term is Hundertwasser Whang\u0101rei, a multi-party project that, after 20 years of delays, just as the gift was about to be taken back by Vienna, was finally able to be built. I\u2019ve always considered this project a relay race, and, for a brief period of time, I had the privilege of being the relay runner. I acknowledge the many, many people who brought this to fruition\u2014including Helen, Clive, Bill, Sue, and David Wilson, who are here today. Now, Hundertwasser was a different sort of advocacy for me, more towards my parliamentary colleagues. Every week, the Hundertwasser strategic funding team would meet to plan what the next step was.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAt that time, regional economic development had passed from Steven Joyce to Simon Bridges. At one of our weekly meetings, I mentioned that Simon was in Dubai, looking to advance our Gulf Cooperation Council ambitions, and that I could look to activate one of my colleagues from my years in Boston, a high family Emirati in Dubai who would likely be meeting with him. This was agreed, and so I placed a call to him in Dubai. The call went something like this: \u201CBu Yusef, may the sun shine on you. Bu Justin, may the sun shine on you too. Can you tell me, are you part of the high-delegation meeting with Minister Bridges this week?\u201D \u201CI am.\u201D \u201CI want you to do something for me. I want you to tell him how the people of Dubai can\u2019t wait for Hundertwasser to be built and that Emirates airlines will land at Whang\u0101rei Airport.\u201D The next caucus meeting, Simon makes a beeline for me. \u201CShane, unbelievable, I was lobbied for Hundertwasser while I was in Dubai.\u201D \u201CWere you, Simon? How unusual!\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, this was not the only time that a senior Cabinet Minister in that term said to me, \u201CShane, unbelievable.\u201D In 2016, the Telecommunications Act was being amended to resolve the broadband roll-out over contested driveways and over existing power poles on private farmland. For us, this was very dependent on the Northpower roll-out. Amy Adams was the Minister for Communications, and I got a call to go to her office. Me and Nathan Guy were there, and Amy says, \u201CNext week, we\u2019re bringing the Telecommunications Bill to the House. We\u2019ve fixed the shared-driveways problem, but we won\u2019t be advancing fibre over existing infrastructure on private farmland. The feds are completely against it and we won\u2019t win that fight.\u201D I said to Amy, \u201CSo, to be clear, the Northpower model for rural communities won\u2019t proceed?\u201D She said, \u201CNo, it\u2019s done.\u201D I got back to my room and thought, \u201CNo, there must be a solution.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo I called Anders, the lead at Federated Farmers and said, \u201CAnders, it\u2019s Dr Shane MP for Whang\u0101rei. I do understand the feds\u2019 fibre reservations. I get that. But if I can get every Northland farmer to consent, will you give us a carve-out for fibre?\u201D He said, \u201CWell, that will be quite a body of work but we will agree if you do that.\u201D I then called Northpower and met with them and legal counsel urgently on site in Whang\u0101rei the next day. I outlined the issues and listed their advocacy and we set up a plan that, over the next three months, would become known as the Northpower Proposal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat weekend, though, I needed to let formidable Minister Amy Adams know what I had done. So I bolstered my courage and texted her: \u201CAmy, the feds have said that if I get consent from every farmer in Northland, they will carve out fibre access.\u201D Amy immediately texted back: \u201CShane, unbelievable. I told you this was done and to leave it alone. You have the feds and Northpower in my office first thing on Monday morning.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOver the next three months, the bill was recommitted back to the select committee, consultations were re-opened, and, after further negotiations with the feds, we got unanimous party agreement for the nationwide roll-out of fibre over existing rural infrastructure, with wide-ranging impact for rural communities. I want to acknowledge the select committee chair at the time, Melissa Lee, along with deputy Kanwaljit Bakshi, and members David Cunliffe, David Clark, Clare Curran, Gareth Hughes, Ria Bond, Alfred Ngaro, Simon O\u2019Connor, and Brett Hudson. You opened the path for rural communities to receive fibre, and rural communities thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI then had two terms in Opposition, further honing one\u2019s craft and learning a new set of skills. It was the first time I had encountered written parliamentary questions, for example, and found them a particularly powerful tool to challenge the Government of the day. I want to acknowledge here my friend and colleague the Hon Peeni Henare. We came in at the same time, and, many years beforehand, I was the GP for his first baby. So I\u2019ve always had a soft spot for Peeni. \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003ENg\u0101 mihi ki a koe e hoa.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo come back to written parliamentary questions, from trial and error, it turns out that if you make a mistake and send your written parliamentary questions to the wrong Minister, that office then redirects them to the correct Minister. There were occasional times in Opposition when I needed to send challenging questions to Peeni, but I couldn\u2019t attack Peeni, so I\u2019d deliberately send my questions to Andrew Little, and his office would transfer them! Then, at the end of the day, you know how it is when you critique how you\u2019ve done\u2014\u201CWas I effective today? Did I make a difference?\u201D\u2014and you have that conversation with your inner voice, and if I had sent parliamentary questions, I\u2019d raise that question \u201CAnd did you attack your mate Peeni?\u201D, and my inner voice would say, \u201CNah, not me; Andrew Little.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt was in Opposition that I heard some of the most amusing things that I have heard in this House, not often picked up by the cameras. We were doing the final reading of the Te P\u016Bkenga bill, I was the tertiary spokesperson in Opposition, and New Zealand First MP Tracey Martin was the last Government speaker. I had the call, and I said to Tracey, \u201CTracey, imagine if we owned the polytechnics, you and I\u2014I\u2019ll go you halves. If we owned the polytechnics, would we be doing this tonight? The answer is no.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, what I\u2019d done a few days earlier was actually to secure a company name, the Shane Reti and Tracey Martin New Zealand Polytechs Ltd. So I said to Tracey, \u201CTracey, I\u2019ve even registered a company name, \u2018Shane Reti and Tracey Martin New Zealand Polytechs Ltd\u2019.\u201D She shouted back at me, \u201CNo, it\u2019s \u2018Tracey Martin and Shane Reti New Zealand Polytechs Ltd\u2019\u201D. \u201CWhatever! Would we be doing this tonight?\u201D And just at that point, Chl\u00F6e Swarbrick shouted out, \u201CTypical. When the Greens want to protest, they march on Parliament; the Nats register a company.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen, in this, my fourth term, I had the privilege of being a Cabinet Minister in Government, taking the policies one has worked on for years and actually deploying them. The Parliamentary Library told me that completing the very first coalition agreement policy of this 54\u003Csup\u003Eth\u003C/sup\u003E Parliament was in my hands\u2014namely the International Health Regulations reservation, which needed to be in Geneva within 48 hours of my being a Minister\u2014and the second coalition policy as well, announcing $30 million a week later to urgently increase emergency department security for the upcoming summer season and out-years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are many highlights as Minister of Health: to develop a policy in Opposition for a third medical school and then bring it into Government and actually start building will change the landscape. It was a privilege to bring forward the biggest funding increase ever in cancer drugs. I want to thank Pharmac, Health New Zealand, the Ministry of Health, and the many clinicians who operationalised it, and the PM, and Minister of Finance, who at the time simply said to me, \u201CShane, you do the policy and we\u2019ll find the money.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA real highlight was extending the breast cancer screening age group from 70 to 74. I acknowledge the advocacy of colleagues Nicola, Louise, and a senior BreastScreen Aotearoa expert in this room tonight. This was a policy worked on for many years\u2014a policy formed in Opposition, then having it drawn from the ballot box, then to first reading, and then implemented within a year of coming into Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI will share with you here what very few know and that probably led to the most lives I have ever saved in my career in the six hours before I made the formal breast-screening announcement in Nelson. Over many meetings with Health New Zealand, we worked up the operational detail and implementation plan. The night before the announcement, I was in Whang\u0101rei reviewing the run sheet and there was something nagging at me. Something was missing and I couldn\u2019t quite put my finger on it. The next day, with the big announcement that afternoon in Nelson, I caught the 6 a.m. flight from Whang\u0101rei.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOn the same flight\u2014indeed, the seat beside me\u2014was a medical colleague who I\u2019d known for decades, who was also the Health New Zealand lead on the programme. He was going down to the big announcement also. I said to him, \u201CThere\u2019s something missing. We\u2019re increasing the breast cancer screening age for everyone from 70 to 74.\u201D \u201CThat\u2019s right,\u201D he said. \u201CEvery year we will increase the age of eligibility by one year, so that in four years\u2019 time, the extension will be complete.\u201D \u201CWhat about those who are already between 70 to 74?\u201D, I asked. \u201CNo, there is nothing for them. People will age in.\u201D That was the hole. I had promised New Zealand women that there would be something for everyone between ages 70 to 74. I asked, \u201CDid you model other options?\u201D He said, \u201CYes, we also modelled a final screen at age 74.\u201D \u201CHow much was that?\u201D, I asked. He said, \u201C$20 million.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI landed in Auckland at 7 a.m. and called Lester Levy. \u201CLester, there\u2019s a policy hole and we need to fix it and it will cost $20 million.\u201D \u201CI will get back to you,\u201D he says. I landed in Wellington an hour later and I got a call from Margie Apa. \u201CMinister, we have the modelling, we can deliver those extra screens, and we can look to do it within baseline.\u201D I landed at Nelson a few hours later and made the announcement that breast cancer screening would be extended for all women. Three flights across six hours and the results to date have been success beyond any of our imagination.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHere is what has happened: the cancer detection rate\u2014or CDR\u2014internationally for a successful screening programme is about four per 1,000 screened. In the first year of the programme, we were seeing a CDR nearly triple that, at 11 per 1,000. Here\u2019s the thing: it\u2019s all happening in that last-year scan\u2014that policy I added on late notice on announcement day. In this older age group, we are seeing screening numbers way beyond what was expected, especially for M\u0101ori women, especially in Northland and East Coast. What none of us anticipated and what the modelling didn\u2019t take into account was the response to it being the last free scan. People are signing in because it\u2019s the last one that is free. To return then to my lead statement, I may well have saved more people across six hours and three flights than at any other time in my career, and that is truly a privilege.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere is always unfinished business as a Minister, and I too have some. I will place just one on the table here now. To the fizzy drinks industry, I was coming for you, and you knew it. I had worked on sugar policy for years, and I met formally with industry representatives at the end of 2024 and outlined my plans. They said to me, \u201CCould you wait until after the busy Christmas/New Year period?\u201D, and I agreed. I told them I didn\u2019t need to use words like \u201Csugar levy\u201D or \u201Csugar tax\u201D, because New Zealand consumers would force the change. Here\u2019s why: the evidence put to me was that one of the most popular cans of fizzy drinks in New Zealand had 10 grams of sugar in it\u2014several teaspoons\u2014but that exact same can of fizzy drink from exactly the same company in Australia only had 7 grams of sugar.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELet me put it another way: some of our fizzy drinks look to be nearly 40 to 50 percent more sugared up here in New Zealand than exactly the same can of fizzy drink in Australia. This was also the case to varying degrees across other popular fizzy drinks in New Zealand. How is that possible? With high diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular rates in New Zealand, how can we possibly explain that and, even more so, allow it? I say to the fizzy drink industry: please explain why you have been deliberately sugaring up New Zealanders, and then reformulate to at least the baseline in Australia.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI am the first M\u0101ori to win the Whang\u0101rei seat, and the 15\u003Csup\u003Eth\u003C/sup\u003E M\u0101ori to win a general seat. Serving the people of Whang\u0101rei has been a privilege. Together, we have progressed the four lanes, the single-biggest economic driver in Northland. We have built a game-changing radiotherapy centre, saved vulnerable people\u2019s lives at a remodelled Salesyard Road, and built the biggest K\u0101inga Ora housing facility in regional New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWellington can be tough, and the beltway can be narrow. When the rigours of Wellington has impacted, returning to the electorate each week has anchored me and reminded me of my purpose, especially with my squash mates: the Brown Brothers, Matty, Bondi, Jonny, Willie, and Steve. I thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn closing, there are others I need to thank: my EAs and SPS\u2019s over the years\u2014Judy Morrissey, Andrea Harris, and Angela Bray\u2014my senior adviser, Jonathan Franklin; and press secretaries Charlotte Gendall, Gabrielle Henderson, and Peter Thornbury. To all the private secretaries and agency executives, I thank you also. To my local electorate office team over the years\u2014Vanessa, Paul, Lynn, Diana, Shannel, campaign chair Ken\u2014and to the people of Whang\u0101rei, I came here to do something, not be something, and I gave it my all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, to my family\u2014many of whom are here today\u2014Mum; Dad; Michelle; children Justin, Melissa, Angela; grandchildren Maisie, Niko, Luke, Hayley, Connor, Charlotte, Christine; stepchildren George, Noelle, Michelle, and Amelia, thank you. And to my partner, Yvonne, who has been with me from the very beginning of this journey, thank you for helping me bring this to life. Thank you all for your understanding when \u201Cpapa Shane\u201D missed your birthdays, recitals, or sports events. I will do better.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo all my parliamentary colleagues across the House, both past and present, thank you for letting me be a part of the wider team. It is not clear to me that what we do here is still well described as the politics of the left and right, but maybe it is better described as the politics of top and bottom. To that end, I wish everyone in this House the wisdom we pray for at the start of each day. \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003ET\u0113n\u0101 koutou. T\u0113n\u0101 koutou. Kia ora mai t\u0101tou katoa.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EApplause\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EWaiata\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterItalicsCentred\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 5.49 p.m. to 7.00 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00222758632527543b122907e82dc53f0fe9\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f63a843d1ebc292f1f4378f19d03e073\u0022\u003EPlanning Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022337154090540e14985f6cd70da2ab6f8\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002329\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c76325f67aacf6e3cef065eca3a6d37f\u0022\u003EPart 3 Combined plan, and Schedules 2 to 5 (continued)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002229b11032f469df5e7ea1228a78d8f3c6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Good evening, members. I hope you dined well. The Committee is resumed on the Planning Bill. When we suspended before the dinner break, voting on Part 3 was in progress.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendment to clause 67B set out on Amendment Paper 741 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002220e286f527e1ba1b9ba65f6ac680c026\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s tabled amendments to clauses 67D and 81 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e9bdeea2c80054aee063b125148b9d2f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Oriini Kaipara\u2019s tabled amendment replacing clause 70 is out of order as being not in the correct form of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Oriini Kaipara\u2019s tabled amendment replacing clause 71(4) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002264a3c01c087f5baa8ec8951d650719ce\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendment deleting clause 92 set out on Amendment Paper 667 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESteve Abel\u2019s tabled amendment deleting clause 92 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOriini Kaipara\u2019s tabled amendments deleting clause 92 and proposing consequential amendments are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Lan Pham\u2019s amendments to clause 105 set out on Amendment Paper\u00A0717 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Part 3 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 3 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d04ca898a71c9537f878f4011d8ac213\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u00226451fe7d4b8311b0698fa514a6756d97\u0022\u003EPart 4 Planning consents, and Schedules 6 and 7\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229809bcdfa9b72518904790a5cda067d3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to Part 4, the debate on clauses 107 to 181, on \u201CPlanning consents\u201D, and including Schedule 6, \u201CInformation required in applications for consent\u201D; and Schedule 7, \u201CSubdivision and reclamation\u201D. The question is that Part 4 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u002241fc5611b61622c590c8fda39e54033a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002241fc5611b61622c590c8fda39e54033a\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (19:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Of course, the committee stage is that stage where any member\u2014no matter how ignorant\u2014can I ask some questions on bills, so I intend to take advantage of that. This isn\u2019t a specialist area of mine, but I do appreciate the importance of the bill. I\u2019m keen to interrogate some of the aspects, and this \u201CPlanning consents\u201D part is a part that is of particular interest to me. I haven\u2019t been in the Chamber for all of the debate, but it\u2019s traditional to go through it fairly methodically, so I thought I\u2019d start with clause 107.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI was just interested if the member would be able to explain the rationale in having two types of consent\u2014a land use consent and a subdivision consent. Now, I can see that they\u2019re distinct things, but it just strikes me that if you\u2019re trying to streamline the consenting procedure, there\u2019s a risk here\u2014I may have this wrong\u2014where, as under the existing regime, one consent would do but, now, you\u2019ve actually got to get two consents, and that would seem to be quite duplicative. Of course, if you\u2019ve got these two overlapping consents\u2014perhaps they\u2019re not overlapping; perhaps they\u2019re entirely distinct\u2014essentially, for one piece of land, which is both being subdivided and also having a particular use put to it. I don\u2019t know what it might be, but you can imagine a large rural subdivision, a lifestyle block, and also having to ensure that the use to which that\u2019s going to be put\u2014perhaps there\u2019s going to be a quarry over in the corner; I don\u2019t know. Previously, it strikes me, that would\u2019ve been able to be done with one consent, so the question is if he could explain how this regime will prevent duplication where a land use consent and a subdivision consent are needed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002242181615d19179292f61a2d86b6506fd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002242181615d19179292f61a2d86b6506fd\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (19:07)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, for the member\u2019s benefit, it\u2019s always been that way, including under the Resource Management Act. The reason there\u2019s two different types of consents\u2014there\u2019s a land use consent that is required for the activities that are required to have a consent on a piece of land; the subdivision consent is required when creating new titles.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022a5c7b8aee3fee1cc976a2786a001a502\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a5c7b8aee3fee1cc976a2786a001a502\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:07)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I, too, have a question around clause 107, and this is to do with the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper\u00A0709 and the new addition in here where, in clause 107(a), it has inserted the land use consent. I do thank the under-secretary for the explanation around the two types of consent. That\u2019s very helpful. Over here, \u201Cor to carry out an activity in, on, under, or over the coastal marine area\u201D has been added, and I want to check why that particular part has been added. Now, of course, we\u2019re not going to go backwards looking at the details of sections 17 and 17A, but, obviously, 17A relates to our coastal marine areas, and it does have specific provisions for the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. But I want to check, over here, what happens in the circumstances when it comes, specifically, to land use consent and when you have an area that was not settled under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act? That\u2019s my first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMy second question is: in here, it does specify \u201Cin, on, under, or over\u201D, and those are very specific prepositions that are being used there, so I wonder if the Minister in some ways wouldn\u2019t mind elucidating on, for example, what is the difference\u2014\u201Cin\u201D and \u201Cunder\u201D and \u201Con\u201D all make sense\u2014between \u201Con\u201D and \u201Cover\u201D coastal marine areas? Those are my two questions for the time being.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00220b9b4833ecca5965387e4e440b18cdcd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220b9b4833ecca5965387e4e440b18cdcd\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (19:09)\u003C/span\u003E: Thanks for giving me the call, Mr Chair. This is a technical amendment that reflects the fact that clause 17(a) provides for activities in the coastal marine area, and it allows for consents to be obtained for uses like ports or wharfs, which are on the land or attached to the land but also stick out into the sea.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022279285ce62ff588a60d104686d8a0273\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022279285ce62ff588a60d104686d8a0273\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (19:10)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Just a brief follow-up on that. The member the chair, Simon Court, knows that I have an interest in wharves and those are mostly dealt with in the next bill, but I want to ask him about this. This is a slightly different way of recognising those existing use rights in the Resource Management Act (RMA). It does look like a much more permissive power, which might be useful, but I don\u2019t think it\u2019s what he said. The way that it\u2019s drafted here looks like it\u2019s possible to give a consent for a marine and coastal area as if it were a land-based consent, which wasn\u2019t the old system. Does that also apply not only to aquaculture but also to uses of that marine and sea area which haven\u2019t been contemplated in our planning system in that way before\u2014like, say, a consent for a tunnel to be built in Auckland under the harbour? That would have been a different sort of consent under the old system than it, I think, will be under the new system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022fbceab7c24cc347698eaac88aed2cfe5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fbceab7c24cc347698eaac88aed2cfe5\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (19:11)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m not going to go into hypotheticals about this consent. Just to be clear, the reason that we have provided for activities in the coastal marine area is because activities such as port operations or cargo handling on wharves have effects that are in scope of the Planning Bill, such as noise. It\u2019s very specifically targeted to those kinds of effects. There are environmental effects which need to be managed under the Natural Environment Bill as it\u2019s envisaged, which are separate to the effects that are intended to be managed under the Planning Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u002229916872e15ecf0004c39dcc1934a221\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002229916872e15ecf0004c39dcc1934a221\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (19:11)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I know the section mentioning Schedule 6 comes up a little later, but there\u2019s a couple of questions I\u2019d be keen to ask the Minister in respect of that\u2014in fact, it\u2019s Schedule 7, because this is the schedule that deals with the consenting process itself and what has to go into some of the material there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe first question I have is about Schedule 7, clause 3, which talks about allotments. There\u2019s just one\u2014and this might be a bit arcane. It tells you what an allotment is, which is a section of land, and it has carve-outs and so on, but it has one which is quite hard to understand, which is \u201C(d) any parcel of land that is not subject to the Land Transfer Act 2017\u201D. I\u2019d be keen for the Minister to explain if there is any land which isn\u2019t subject to the Land Transfer Act 2017 and where that is and how that is managed in terms of consenting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen, in clause 6 of Schedule 7, it\u2019s about conditions and just about natural hazards. It\u2019s about when a consenting authority determines that a natural hazard exists, and it says that the consent\u2014\u201CA subdivision consent may include a condition requiring that provision be made, to the satisfaction of the consent authority \u2026 to protect land\u201D, and so on. I\u2019m just curious as to whether the Minister considered a \u201Cmust\u201D in there, because we\u2019re talking about some pretty significant natural hazards, and I\u2019ve heard other members talking about flooding risk, coastal inundation, and so on. It does seem to give a mere discretion. There have been instances where steps clearly should have been taken but weren\u2019t, and that\u2019s had real consequences down the road.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll put three questions in one here, and my third question is about clause 10 of Schedule 7, and it\u2019s actually where the consenting authority has required an easement to be granted or reserved. I can understand that if you\u2019ve got this easement to cross or to carry water or whatever it might be, you don\u2019t want it to be extinguished, but one of the extinguishments which is prohibited is automatic, so it\u2019s a really difficult one, right? \u201C(2) After the easement is granted or reserved, it must not, except with the written consent of the territorial authority \u2026 (b) be merged by transfer to the owner of the benefited land or the burdened land;\u201D. That\u2019s when you\u2019ve got two pieces of land, one which gets the benefit and one which gets the burden of the easement. If those two pieces of land are merged into one ownership, there is no benefit-burden relationship; you have both the benefit and burden, and what the law of easements says is at that point, the easement is extinguished by operation of law. If you\u2019ve got something that happens if you just happen to purchase that adjacent parcel of land, I\u2019m not sure how you can be prohibited from the law operating.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf the Minister could explain those three questions\u2014so that was the merger of easements, whether there should be a \u201Cmust include a condition requiring the addressing of natural hazards risk\u201D, and land which is not subject to the Land Transfer Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002245f709af31f1729fafd648045a43b567\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002245f709af31f1729fafd648045a43b567\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (19:15)\u003C/span\u003E: To the member Duncan Webb, the provisions he\u2019s speaking about will carry over directly from the Resource Management Act. Officials have advised that no submissions were received by the select committee on these matters because they\u2019re non-contentious and they carry over existing provisions relating to easements.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022871cd288256fab0684b8743f2845c823\u0022\u003EHon Dr Duncan Webb\u003C/span\u003E: Well, this was your big chance to fix it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002286519aaa8db9a66c2d426888ec2bf960\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Webb suggests this is our big chance to fix it; we do not believe anything needs to be fixed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022c12aad15d2a5568ceab6cd8c855ca695\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c12aad15d2a5568ceab6cd8c855ca695\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (19:16)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m not sure that I understand the tone there. Anyway, I would like to go to clause 146 of Part 4, and this is \u201CLand use consent may be refused or granted with conditions if risk from natural hazards\u201D. This is a good clause, but then what happens at subclause (4) is that there is an exception. It says, \u201CThis section does not apply to a land use consent for\u2014(a) constructing, upgrading, maintaining, or operating infrastructure, except to the extent that national standards provide that this section applies; or (b) a primary production activity, except to the extent that national standards provide that this section applies.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s quite convoluted language anyway for an exceptions clause, but what that means is that the \u201Cno\u201D that would be said to a consent application because there\u2019s a natural hazard\u2014that \u201Cno\u201D doesn\u2019t apply for constructing infrastructure and for primary production. We\u2019ve discussed earlier that the definition of \u201Cinfrastructure\u201D is very wide, and by my interpretation could include a shop, because that definition only requires one of the criteria to be met for infrastructure, and one of those criteria is economic\u2014hence the shop. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat is the point of having this good clause 146 that says you can say no if there\u2019s a natural hazard when there are so many exceptions to it, given that everything is now infrastructure, and if it\u2019s not infrastructure, then it\u2019s likely to be primary production? Given that definition of \u201Cinfrastructure\u201D, all primary production is infrastructure anyway. But if the member in the chair, Simon Court, could comment on the breadth of this exception to 146 and if he can explain how it doesn\u2019t undermine that whole point of 146 and the rhetoric that this Government has given time and time again about responding to hazards\u2014we hear the Prime Minister say there\u2019s not going to be building in flood plains. I know the member in the chair has a different because he\u2019s an engineer, but that is what we have heard from the Government time and time again. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E] I can\u2019t hear what\u2019s being said there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b42bbf151995b4813a735c4d456b9866\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: You\u2019re not missing anything.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224192a27a31d5258b1f1015f345e82842\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Right. The point is: why are they undermining this exception and what will that do, given the wide definition of \u201Cinfrastructure\u201D and that it includes construction\u2014so it\u2019s not just upgrading and maintaining infrastructure that is already there; it\u2019s putting in new infrastructure to a hazard area. Is that not going to cause a whole lot of problems that are going to have to be undone and cost everyone a whole lot of money and be very inefficient?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002269366105fcec168be1f9c1ac32b5a254\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002269366105fcec168be1f9c1ac32b5a254\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (19:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Look, I think it\u2019s really important that we address this thoroughly, so if the Chair would give me some leniency to explain this in detail.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe member raises a very, very important question: given how important it is that we recognise the risks of natural hazards, why is it that infrastructure should be allowed in areas exposed to natural hazards, and why are primary production activities allowed in areas exposed to natural hazards? I\u2019m going to give the member a fulsome answer, and I trust that this will help progress the discussion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EInfrastructure activities have been excluded from the natural hazards consenting and permitting provision because they are often needed to be located in areas exposed to natural hazards, for functional or operational reasons. A port needs to be on the coast; a stormwater outfall needs to be on the coast. They are exposed to natural hazards. As the member rightly pointed out, I spent nearly 25 years as a civil engineer designing and constructing infrastructure so that it could be resistant or resilient against natural hazards. It is possible, and this legislation provides for it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis exclusion does not mean that infrastructure can be developed without consideration of risk or that consents and permits cannot be refused or conditioned on natural hazards grounds. Consent authorities can still consider risk and decline or condition applications where the relevant plan provides for those matters to be considered. Infrastructure providers are also generally well placed because many of them include engineers in their staff to identify managed natural hazards risks through site selection, design, and mitigation measures, and have strong incentives to do so to avoid service disruption and costly damage. National standards can still provide for the provision to apply to particular infrastructure activities where that is justified.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOn the matter of primary production: in many cases, risks associated with primary production activities can be managed by mitigation measures and by locating activities appropriately. The potential consequences for people and property are also generally lower than in a more densely developed urban area. For example, a paddock with a fence in it that might be occasionally flooded might still be an appropriate place to carry out primary production activity, like letting the sheep eat grass when it\u2019s not flooded. The exclusion doesn\u2019t mean that primary production activities can be developed without consideration of risk or that consents permits cannot be refused or conditioned on natural hazards grounds, as for infrastructure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAgain, as for infrastructure, authorities can still consider risks, decline or condition applications where the relevant plan provisions allow for it, and the bills will allow national standards to apply the provision to particular primary production activities where that is justified. I hope that satisfies the member about this very important matter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022d132afafa127b86867d1a546c1a75019\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d132afafa127b86867d1a546c1a75019\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (19:22)\u003C/span\u003E: Absolutely not. The member Simon Court doesn\u2019t address the wide definition of infrastructure, and the member also said, \u201CWell, there are functional and operational reasons for putting some infrastructure in some places.\u201D I do not disagree with that. In fact, I agree with the member in the chair, but why, then, does it not say \u201Cif there is a functional and operational need for it to be in that area.\u201D It does not include that caveat, and that would be a very useful caveat to have here, noting that the infrastructure here goes far beyond the type of engineering work that the member has been doing for the past 25 years\u2014which is what most people would consider infrastructure\u2014but it\u2019s not how it is defined in this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESecondly, we did not get\u2014and I note that Government members shut down the debate on two schedules that we did not have an opportunity to ask questions to before the dinner break. I think that is appalling when there has been some promise to go through the process here properly, and we have been trying to very diligently go through it piece by piece. Then we got shut off, and shame on those members across there who shut down that debate; it\u2019s appalling.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the questions I would have asked in that, which I\u2019m now going to try and relate to this point, is: infrastructure often relates to what can be designated, and some of the list which we would have gone through for designations in the schedule, that we were not able to debate, includes things like early childhood centres. I think it may even include private early childhood centres. Given the definition of infrastructure, does the member think that there is a functional and operational need for a private early childhood educator to have a facility newly constructed in a hazard area?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022c78f335f2a0d8a1b1acc6f69b9b7b38c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c78f335f2a0d8a1b1acc6f69b9b7b38c\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:24)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I do want to hear the response from the Under-Secretary regarding that particular question. Also, in those cases, I want to further understand\u2014if the Under-Secretary wouldn\u2019t mind elucidating\u2014the interaction of, for example, this particular bill when it comes to new early childhood education (ECE) centres in a hazardous zone, and that\u2019s relating to the requirements of ECEs under the Education and Training Act, section 4(b) specifically. I do have a separate question, but keeping a note that that\u2019s a very important question by the Hon Rachel Brooking.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to start with clause 110 and move on, very briefly, to clause 113, noting that others may have other questions as well. I want to check with the Under-Secretary regarding clause 110(1)(b)(i), which is also an additional change that has been added in Amendment Paper 709. In this case, land use makes sense, but it\u2019s specifies a rule in a proposed land-use plan as opposed to previously just a proposed plan provision that is being notified. Can I check with the Under-Secretary on why the rule has been specifically defined here, in this particular amendment?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy other question, for the time being, is on clause 113(1) and (2). I just had a look in terms of Maritime New Zealand\u2019s jurisdiction, because I was curious as to the jurisdiction of Maritime New Zealand when it comes to navigable lakes or rivers. It does look like that maritime covers all waterways, including oceans and coasts, etc. Can I check\u2014unless another area already includes it\u2014why, then, would an application affecting navigation in a lake or river need to have the consent authority sending a copy of the application to Maritime New Zealand, but when it comes to coastal marine areas, which will presumably also be under Maritime New Zealand\u2019s jurisdiction, there isn\u2019t, at least in this clause, a mention of marine coastal areas, where for any application to the consent authority, the consent authority also needs to send a copy of that application to Maritime New Zealand?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThose are my three questions: one on the interaction with the Education and Training Act; one around the changes to clause 110(1)(b)(i), and around the copy of the application to Maritime New Zealand when it involves the coastal marine area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00220b84b1504230020c02b35c7bc54bac0b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220b84b1504230020c02b35c7bc54bac0b\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (19:28)\u003C/span\u003E: Just responding, firstly, to the questions from the Hon Rachel Brooking. The caveat is around when new information is available, and there needs to be a backstop for when a plan is not yet updated but there\u2019s new information available about natural hazards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe member raised a number of hypotheticals. Look, it\u2019s very clear what infrastructure means; it\u2019s defined in the legislation. We covered that extensively in Part 1, and the member should be satisfied that councils can still make rules and plans which clarify how those two concepts are applied. I doubt very, very much whether a council is going to permit early childhood education (ECE) centres to be built in an area exposed to significant risks from natural hazards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn response to the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, clause 110 that he referred to: that\u2019s a drafting update. The change that he referred to is a minor and technical amendment to specify the rule and the plan; it\u2019s the rule in the plan that has changed. With respect to clause 113, \u201CApplication affecting navigation to be referred to Maritime New Zealand\u201D, that\u2019s a direct carry-over from the Resource Management Act. Maritime New Zealand would be interested if somebody wants to build something in the way of a ship. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022cbbdffc8d3936448018d87799a4259df\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cbbdffc8d3936448018d87799a4259df\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (19:29)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. A brief question on clause 109 and then I\u2019ll take the Minister very quickly through clauses 123 to 130. On clause 109, I understand that the regime at the applying for the consent stage now requires just proportionate information. That\u2019s a key concept that we understand from the public documents on this, but one might expect that there is some safeguard that\u2019s not in this clause\u2014so where is it\u2014against that proportionate information then becoming inadequate information in cases where the effects are uncertain or particularly cumulative. A second follow-up question to that is: how does he expect councils to act when they are receiving information about unknown effects, particularly for M\u0101ori, given that that has a special place in the decision-making hierarchy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen to clause 123 to 130. These are the provisions which are about planning consent notification and submissions. It\u2019s a targeted notification regime, we get that, but the first question I have for the member in the chair is around this \u201Cmore than minor\u201D designation that councils are able to make. Now, given that that\u2019s not just a sort of on/off button that the councils had under the Resource Management Act where it was either publicly notified or not, \u201Cmore than minor\u201D now has the effect that people who are adversely affected, but in a minor way, now can\u2019t have a say. To the member: is that the right interpretation? Is the effect that somebody who has, say, been in an area\u2014it\u2019s very common, for instance, in Auckland for the council to decide that there is not a more than minor impact on residents when a cell tower is being consented in their area, but they still have the ability to have a say if they want to have a say. But now it reads as if they will not be able to have a say because of those targeted consultation provisions being much narrower. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll also then take him specifically to clause 128, and I want to ask about the definition of the person who is affected. This is now much, much narrower. For members who have not been following on closely, the effect of this is much more similar to, say, alcohol licensing, where somebody who has a say at a hearings panel will need to be a resident in the area that is affected. That is much more restrictive, so I want to ask\u2014sorry, was that feedback on the mic? I want to ask the Minister: what is the impact of this determination given that it\u2019s not something that\u2019s been tested in New Zealand law and we don\u2019t have any regulations for standing? Standing in those sorts of cases, where people have restricted access to the panels, is often the first thing which is litigated, so who is an affected person will be probably the number one thing off the block when these types of decisions are being made. It would be really helpful if\u2014the member in the chair doesn\u2019t need to solve it tonight; he just needs to say what this regime is most like so that when these issues are first determined about who has standing to make an application to be heard, what kind of person that is if they\u2019re not a resident.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022b3f28467c04864cdb618e4fa211d6fd5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b3f28467c04864cdb618e4fa211d6fd5\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (19:33)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll just come to the member\u2019s first question on clause 109. It\u2019s the Government\u2019s intention. I see overwhelming desire of those who seek to see the resource management system reformed to make it more permissible, more responsive, and more proportionate to the risks that need to be managed. Clause 109(3) reflects that, which is: \u201CAn applicant must ensure that information required \u2026 is provided a level of detail that is proportionate to the scale and significance of the effects of the activity to which the application relates.\u201D The member raised the point that there may be unknown information, new information\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221a0306bff5dae4d97c783785c0b93f59\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, what if it changes over time?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251831c9cdf7b1a0f82cca58b4f35d049\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014changes over time. An activity that has that level of uncertainty or lack of information is likely to be regarded as having a higher need for condition when consents are issued. But as an example, discretionary consents in the new system\u2014I urge the member to return to clause 31(2)(c) to verify this\u2014are required where there is significant variability in adverse effects. We have provided for some of that uncertainty that arises.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe member\u2019s subsequent question was around notification. In the resource management system, notification is wide, and the requirements for notification are often onerous. The proposed approach in the bills departs from the Resource Management Act in the following ways: it requires targeted notification over public notification where affected persons can be identified; it raises the threshold for targeted notification from \u201Cminor\u201D to \u201Cmore than minor\u201D; and it raises the public notification threshold for \u201Cmore than minor\u201D to \u201Csignificant\u201D in the separate Natural Environment Bill. We\u2019ve been quite specific about those choices. It\u2019s our intention that the number of people who are notified, and the number of people who subsequently have standing, is much reduced to those who are directly affected by applications for development and activities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022 data-id=\u00223d9712c476dfb525fae28a0537934868\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223d9712c476dfb525fae28a0537934868\u0022\u003EDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (19:36)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Minister. Just touching on what Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan highlighted in clause 110, and I thought you were actually going to answer my question to clause 110, but I\u2019ll ask it again just so you can round that out a little bit better. In particular, clause 110(1)(b), and it\u2019s \u201Cthe activity classification of the activity (being restricted discretionary or discretionary)\u201D, and it\u2019s got \u201Caltered\u201D crossed out and \u201Cchange\u201D underlined, which, in my mind, is a significant amendment. \u201CChange\u201D is a broad word for making anything different or replacing one thing with another, whereas \u201Calter\u201D means to make a small or partial adjustment or keeping the core identity of the object the same. As an engineer, and I wasn\u2019t actually aware that you had an engineer background, Minister, but \u201Cchange\u201D and \u201Calter\u201D, in an engineering sense, are two very different words. We want to change the Government; altering the Government is not enough. They\u2019re two very different words, and I just wanted to get your clarification on why that amendment is within clause 110.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u002266c3f2057ce8ea40b897f9cb9bbb16a9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002266c3f2057ce8ea40b897f9cb9bbb16a9\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (19:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Just a couple of questions. Just the nuts and bolts of this interests me, and Schedule 6 deals with information required in applications for the planning consent. One of the things about the bill that strikes me is that it introduces a whole lot of judgments, which are essentially proportionality judgments, and if they\u2019re made by the person seeking the consent, or even by the consenting authority, there\u2019s a risk of a lack of consistency, because they are essentially a subjective assessment of what is required. One of those assessments is found in clause 3 of Schedule 6, which is: \u201Cif the application is affected by section 164 \u2026 an assessment of the value of the investment of the existing consent holder (for the purposes of section 139(1)(f)):\u201D. I\u2019m just interested\u2014are there going to be regulations as to how we go about that? Assessments of value can be very varied, and even a valuer would say to you that there\u2019s three or five ways you can value any particular investment depending on the cost of it, market value, best alternative use value, and off you go. I\u2019m interested in that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAlso, clause 6 of Schedule 6, the information required in the assessment of\u2014and it\u2019s got \u201Cenvironmental\u201D crossed out; it just says \u201Ceffects\u201D. In particular, for the information on the effects, you\u2019ve removed from what has to go into the consenting documents, it appears\u2014\u201Cenvironmental effects\u201D\u2014and rather you\u2019ve just got \u201Ceffects on the built environment\u201D. Now, that seems very strange to me, because even if it is an urban setting, there are still wider environmental effects which aren\u2019t necessarily effects on the built environment\u2014that is to say, I\u2019m assuming, bits of the environment that have been constructed. Then, again, you\u2019ve got in clause 6(1)(b), \u201Cmust include detail proportionate to the scale and significance\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAgain, whilst it\u2019s buried right in the detail here, I\u2019d be interested in the Minister\u2019s views on who determines what is proportionate to scale and significance, because the person seeking the consent will have one view, the consenting authority will have another view, different consenting authorities may have different views, and the affected communities will have a different view again. I think that\u2019s actually quite a significant question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFurther down again, I\u2019m just interested in clause 6(2)(d) of Schedule 6, where it had, previously\u2014and I\u2019m imagining it was reported back from select committee\u2014a description of how any adverse effects on the built environment will be avoided, and it did say \u201Cminimised\u201D, but now it says \u201Cmitigated\u201D. I\u2019m interested as to why there is the weaker term of \u201Cmitigation\u201D, which is addressing it in some way, whereas \u201Cminimised\u201D seems to be reducing it as far as is practicable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo there\u2019s a handful of questions. One is about what is an assessment of value, one is around why environmental effects were removed, and one is why \u201Cminimised\u201D was swapped out for \u201Cmitigated\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00226c04e86078e79660b6bd4d6ebfb3c650\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226c04e86078e79660b6bd4d6ebfb3c650\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (19:41)\u003C/span\u003E: I start with Schedule 6 and why \u201Cenvironmental\u201D was removed. It\u2019s because environmental effects are covered under the Natural Environment Bill. Schedule 6, to be clear, is complemented by national standards or plan requirements, so there will be more detail on how these things are done in the system. If I could return to the question from Dan Rosewarne, what that clause means is that if somebody makes the consent application and, in the meantime, the council changes the plan, their consent can continue under the rules that were enforced at the time they made their consent application. Again, that\u2019s a carryover from the Resource Management Act; it\u2019s a natural justice - type revision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022bf4043de0c1ced4e81e45720c1fbe101\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bf4043de0c1ced4e81e45720c1fbe101\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (19:42)\u003C/span\u003E: Moving on, I\u2019m going to go to clause 149, which is \u201CConsent authority may grant application with adaptive management approach\u201D. Then there\u2019s a whole lot about how you decide if you\u2019re going to do an adaptive management approach. My question relates to this being in the Planning Bill rather than the Natural Environment Bill, and it might be a crossover issue. But if this is for land use, what sort of adaptive management is used for land use? The circumstances that spring to mind about adaptive management are normally things that would be happening in the ocean\u2014you have that test in the offshore legislation. I\u2019m just wondering if he can explain if this adaptive management approach is for land use or if there is some connection between how the two bills work, and if it is for land use, can he give some examples of how it would be used?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnother question is on 149A, and I\u2019m just wondering how this relates, if it relates at all, to the new 10A\u2014I think it was 10A\u2014that\u2019s been inserted by agreement at the start of the bill, after agreement with the Waikato iwi involved in the river management.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen I\u2019ll go on to a third question. This is from clause 168, and these are very important provisions and they look to be similar to the Resource Management Act as well, and that is the review of consent conditions by the consent authority. There\u2019s a process, we have to give notice, there\u2019s some submissions, things have to be considered, and then at clause 172, there is a decision on the review of consent conditions, and that\u2019s at subclause (3)\u2014172(3) and (4). Subclause (3) says, \u201CA consent authority may cancel a planning consent\u201D\u2014so it\u2019s discretionary\u2014\u201Cif\u2014(a) it reviews the consent under\u201D the relevant section, and \u201C(c) there are significant adverse effects on the built environment resulting from the use of the consent.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAgain, I\u2019m just wondering, for some colour in this, if there are some examples of what the member in the chair imagines \u201Csignificant adverse effects on the built environment\u201D might be that could result in the cancellation of a land-use consent. Again, most of the reviews that I\u2019ve seen of consent conditions have been more around those relating to water pollution or soil contamination or those sorts of things. This refers to \u201Csignificant adverse effects on the built environment\u201D, so some colour there as well would be very useful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo that\u2019s three questions: one on clause 172, about what a review would be; one was on the adaptive management provision, which is back at clause 149; and then clause 149A and how it relates to new 10A.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022da98581151a217014869abb773f53327\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022da98581151a217014869abb773f53327\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:47)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the under-secretary for his reasons so far. I do want to focus specifically on some of the changes in this bill that have been made in Amendment Paper 709. I\u2019m now on new clause 114A, which is the application relating to offshore renewable energy (ORE) generation infrastructure activities. Obviously, this part has been inserted since the ORE bill became an Act, quite recently. But one of the things that jumped out at me in this particular section is it talks about applying for planning consent if they have a current feasibility permit or a commercial permit. Now, under the Offshore Renewable Energy Act, this is a two-tier process. There are two permits that are referred to here. But what I\u2019m not seeing in clause 114A is whether, if an applicant holds a feasibility permit, they got the consent, they again transitioned to a commercial permit as a result of that feasibility test\u2014would the consent automatically transfer over to a commercial permit or would the applicant need to apply again using their commercial permit to apply for a new consent? I think that part is just a little bit unclear in how this new addition has been drafted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI now want to move on to clause 131, and I\u2019m just wanting to seek the under-secretary\u2019s engagement on my colleague Lan Pham\u2019s Amendment Paper 730, which is to replace subclause (1) to allow for any person to make a submission about the consenting authority rather than simply the qualifying people as detailed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 131(1)\u2014i.e., a qualifying person of the district or a person who is not a qualified resident but is related to the affected person under clause 128. This is to ensure that the clause is in line with the view of a number of the submitters that have been heard in the select committee process who are opposed to the narrowing of the situation for public notification and limiting public submissions just to qualifying residents. So I wanted to seek the under-secretary\u2019s engagement on Amendment Paper 730 regarding clause 131.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy next question is on the new insertion, which is clause 131(1A). I wonder if the under-secretary wouldn\u2019t mind also elaborating on why this particular part has been added in and how this is sufficiently different from one that requires its own particular section.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy last question at this stage is about clause 133, \u201CStriking out submissions\u201D. It states, \u201C(1) A consent authority may, in the manner prescribed in regulations, strike out a submission, or part of a submission,\u201D. We understand from the select committee there are submissions that may potentially not be relevant to the bill we\u2019re discussing, but those submissions are never really struck out; they are returned to the submitter. I want to check with the Minister two things. Number one is whether struck out would imply returning to the applicant, or, without letting the submitter know, just simply reject it. When it comes to regulations, normally regulations make a specific reference to which clause the regulation will fall under. Can I just check that in this case, in regulations, we\u2019re referring to secondary legislation and there\u2019s a particular empowering clause that the secondary legislation would fall under.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022780b623e345f6123670abcdea0344f82\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022780b623e345f6123670abcdea0344f82\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (19:51)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. This point about clause 131 through to clause 133 is about who is able to make a submission. Acknowledging that the member in the chair has made a change to change \u201Cresident\u201D to \u201Cperson\u201D\u2014I assume that\u2019s because the new definition now includes a body corporate. Is that right? That is the first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe next question I have is about the public notification requirements only applying to those qualifying persons, and this is a new insertion, and this is where the rubber really hits the road, I guess, for these applications. This is the knocking out of the Forest \u0026amp; Bird provision and it\u2019s knocking out groups who have traditionally organised around these issues. I just want to ask some clarifying questions of the member in the chair, because it seems that this provision, which has been added in without any consultation on it, goes too far and further than what the policy intention is. We\u2019re going to end up with some silly outcomes here. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want the member to consider the examples where people do want to make submissions, and those submissions might be out of area\u2014say, the extension of the Waitemat\u0101 wharves out into the harbour, where recreational fishers have an interest in using the harbour and they would not be able to make an application, and under the old system they would have been able to make an application. Then there is the situation of the gun club where I was the general counsel working for an iwi in West Auckland, where there was a funny outcome and one that had not been anticipated but was essentially an application to build a gun club in an area for the iwi where 30 women and children had lost their lives in the Land Wars with gun violence. That would have been a silly outcome for the community, and one which offended not only the sensibilities of the iwi but the local residents and the people who bore the name of the town in the area\u2014Helensville.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThese silly outcomes will arise if we don\u2019t have a way for people who are outside of an immediate area to be able to make representations about their interests, whether they are cultural or customary\u2014for anyone. These are the recreational participation rights and that is why we have public participation rights at the planning consent level. Things like extensions of discharge; things like the enjoyment of a particular community in an area where the nature of the community has changed over the last 10 years, where they had a factory but now there are thousands of residents there\u2014this is going to happen increasingly with more development. We want that more development, but we also want local residents to be able to update and change the way that planning consents in the area are given, and this is the mechanism to do it, but they may not be able to do that because of the new rule where, now, bodies corporate are allowed to make submissions, but anyone who is not in the immediate area\u2014say, MPs or groups that are organisers of groups of submissions\u2014are not able to apply in that way. That seems to be a problem that doesn\u2019t reach the policy intent and just makes it very, very narrow representations from immediately affected residents who can demonstrate an adverse impact.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do want to ask about the striking out of submissions. I read in regulations\u2014the regulations apply to tribunals. Is that right? The alcohol tribunals operate under those rules as well. They are natural justice rules that apply to all tribunals, or do you intend to create new rules that apply to this tribunal only?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002246621af6a1e117f2b9413ae83a9973f0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002246621af6a1e117f2b9413ae83a9973f0\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (19:55)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, there have been quite a few questions asked from some of the members over the previous few minutes. I will attempt to respond to them individually.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe member the Hon Rachel Brooking asked questions about clause 149, which deals with adaptive management. In a land-use planning context, adaptive management could be expected to be applied, say, for an activity which might generate noise and vibration and where monitoring of that activity after it commenced would tell the applicant and the regulator whether additional improvements need to be made to mitigate any effects or whether the activity can continue based on the consent granted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWith respect to Rachel Brooking\u2019s questions about the relevance of clause 149A, \u201CPlanning consent giving effect to Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato may be contrary to water services standard\u201D, it is intended, as Mr Bishop and I have explained a number of times, to give effect to the Waikato River Treaty settlement and to acknowledge the vision strategy for the Waikato River.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe member asked a question about clause 172, \u201CDecisions on review of consent conditions\u201D. This is a carry-over from the Resource Management Act (RMA), and essentially it provides for, say, situations where there\u2019s a structure, a home, in an area or an activity exposed to natural hazards. If a council has issued consent and then gets new information\u2014where I live in Auckland, we get new information about landslide risk, and that means that consents for some sorts of activities and occupations have had to be reviewed, and in some cases the decision is that people can\u2019t live there anymore. So, again, the legislation provides for that. It\u2019s quite practical.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, there were a number of other questions that I\u2019m going to now get to. Clause 114A\u2014forgive me; I can\u2019t remember which member asked that question. It was subclause 1(a) about application for offshore renewable energy. The member Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s question was around if an energy applicant has either a feasibility or a commercial permit and they obtain a consent based on, say, feasibility, will they have to reconsent once they get to commercial. One of the challenges we do have in the current RMA is that when anything changes from the time that somebody produces a concept, preliminary design, detailed design to when they get a consent and they go to issue for construction drawings\u2014I\u2019m just drawing on my experience as an engineer\u2014having to go back and reconsent any changes between submitting the application with a design proposal and then finalising it for construction is onerous, time-consuming, costly, and often doesn\u2019t really do anything to manage risk.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWithout wanting to cast forward or provide a legal opinion, I imagine that if the risks are dealt with at the time a feasibility permit is established, then if it\u2019s acceptable to the consenting authority that it\u2019s all been dealt with in the round and any changes between feasibility and commercial are minor and technical, I\u2019m assuming that consent would carry over. Again, that is a cut and paste, essentially, from the RMA, because when this bill was being drafted, that offshore renewable energy hadn\u2019t been passed yet, and when it did pass, it referred to the Resource Management Act. So, again, we\u2019re just bringing in a number of matters.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, clause 133\u2014striking out. Now this is an interesting question; I appreciate the question from Lawrence Xu-Nan, and also Arena Williams who raised it. Striking out\u2014so if a consent authority strikes out a submission or part of a submission if it\u2019s not reasonable or relevant to the case, the reason for the striking out that\u2019s been provided to me is it means that the struck-out part cannot form part of a subsequent appeal on any matter. It does provide significant\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EBell rung\u003C/span\u003E] Mr Chair?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e4a7f944879bc816026561134284607f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Simon Court.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002281ef550df98a17ca616caa4fa2018df0\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. It does provide some significant protection to the consenting authority if there\u2019s matters that are just not related to the activity, the application, and that could provide for appeals on matters that just aren\u2019t relevant.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ENow, we continue. I\u2019ve run out of pages\u2014hold on. Thank you. Regulation-making power for striking out submissions is under clause 281(1)(a). It\u2019s not about the planning tribunal; it\u2019s for councils. I hope that satisfies members that the questions they posed have been responded to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00223ff48a59cbd7436cb8639b5cedd5a378\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223ff48a59cbd7436cb8639b5cedd5a378\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (20:01)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I\u2019ve got a question here on clause 138, although I do remember asking the member a question about why planning tribunals were being used for some things in a different part that was not answered. Now that he\u2019s talking about planning tribunals, he might want to refer to it. But clause 138: \u201CMatters that consent authority must disregard\u201D. It goes to scope, section 14, that we\u2019ve traversed; \u201Cany effect on a person who has given written approval\u201D; and then what I\u2019m interested in is paragraph (c), which is: \u201Cany adverse effect of the activity on the built environment if the land use plan or a national rule permits an activity with that effect.\u201D This is the permitted baseline. That\u2019s a concept developed by courts that has been useful for a system that focuses on consents rather than plans and national direction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMy question is: if we are reshaping the system away from by consent, why do we need to codify the permitted baseline when so much is already permitted? There shouldn\u2019t be that many things that this would apply to, and it could add a whole lot of complexity to the decision making around the consent, because it\u2019s supposed to be simplifying consents and it\u2019s more binary in terms of consents. We\u2019ve got rid of the non-complying activity status; we\u2019ve got rid of the controlled activity status here. So why do we need that permitted baseline?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002287f8e33cd38a9294866f9a8f4a621ece\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002287f8e33cd38a9294866f9a8f4a621ece\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (20:03)\u003C/span\u003E: Look, for the member\u2019s benefit and just harking back to some of the great work she did in developing resource management law in New Zealand, I\u2019ve been advised that the Natural and Built Environment Act\u2014RIP, since repealed\u2014also provided for that same function. But let\u2019s be clear: the Government intends that common activities for which we know how to manage the risks and the impacts are provided for in national standards or rules in a plan. Therefore, we\u2019ve acknowledged there are some activities associated with the effects of those activities, and it\u2019s our intention that they not be litigated again during the consenting process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022818bc41be031e93f8bd85096f40806a4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022818bc41be031e93f8bd85096f40806a4\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (20:04)\u003C/span\u003E: Just a little\u2014sorry for knees and things from people who jumped up there. I just have a little question for the member. When he referred to the great Natural and Built Environment Act\u2014that his Government cruelly repealed in December 2023 and brought back the Resource Management Act\u2014is he saying that this legislation before us is not different from that Natural and Built Environment Act, and that this legislation isn\u2019t far more enabling than that Natural and Built Environment Act, as he has been telling us in previous contributions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00223e4acfc036a8768c5c6d8cbeb8527b09\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223e4acfc036a8768c5c6d8cbeb8527b09\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (20:05)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s very clear that the permitted baseline approach that the member referred to in her previous question is a good concept. It\u2019s been carried through; it\u2019s established, I understand, through case law, through consenting. It\u2019s been carried through a number of iterations of resource management reform. It\u2019s one of the good things that if activities and their effects are well understood, and a rule and a plan can specify how those effects are managed, or a national rules and a national standard, then they don\u2019t need to be relitigated at each and every consent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThat is the Government\u2019s intent. We want to reduce, as far as practical, the real implication of activities and effects that are well understood at consenting level. We want to lift up the difficult decisions and trade-offs to plan making, to the development of national standards\u2014I\u2019m going up the funnel now to national policy direction\u2014and not have stuff relitigated. So it\u2019s a good clause, I\u2019m sure the member would agree, and we\u2019re going to keep it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022d9fd6cd5f650f01a1869512d94a65b12\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d9fd6cd5f650f01a1869512d94a65b12\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you to the under-secretary for your responses before. That was very helpful and very fulsome, so I really appreciate that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI have a question regarding clause 136, which is \u201CDecision by commissioner\u201D, noting that it was also quite helpful that there is at least a reference to the original Resource Management Act (RMA) regarding comparable clauses. But what jumped out at me for this particular section is in the original RMA, section 100A. It also allows not just simply if the applicant is asking for a hearing by commissioners, but it also allows someone who makes a submission to also ask for a hearing by commissioners. I\u2019m just curious as to why that part, where someone who makes a submission requesting a hearing by commissioner, has been removed from this particular part. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow I\u2019m going to move on to clause 139 and just following on from what the Hon Rachel Brooking is asking regarding this section as well. Again, you know, I\u2019m trying to focus on changes that Amendment Paper 709 is making, and I want to specifically focus on clause 139(1)(c) and (d). Now, clause 139 says, \u201CThe consent authority must have regard to the following: \u2026 (c) any measures proposed or agreed to by the applicant to avoid, remedy, mitigate,\u201D\u2014this has changed from \u201Cminimise\u201D, and I do wonder why, because \u201Cmitigate\u201D and \u201Cavoid\u201D are synonyms, whereas \u201Cminimise\u201D is not. I want to check: why is \u201Cmitigate\u201D used in that particular section? It doesn\u2019t look like, at a glance, it\u2019s a carry-over from the original Act, so I think that would be helpful to seek some clarification on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of paragraph (d), we\u2019re looking at water service standards, so presumably clause 139(1)(d)(iii), where the water services standard has now been captured\u2014any relevant provisions of a water services standard. But would the Minister, on a second review, be able to clarify on why \u201C(i) the land use plan or proposed land use plan:\u201D and \u201C(ii) a national rule in national standards:\u201D have been removed from that particular paragraph? Those are my two questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002236c9f60e8d7131c3cdf878552caf9f52\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002236c9f60e8d7131c3cdf878552caf9f52\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (20:09)\u003C/span\u003E: Just in response to the question about the hearings, the applicant under the Resource Management Act was required to bear the cost of the application; in the new system, they\u2019re not. So we\u2019re not providing for them to access a hearing as of right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe member asked a question about \u201Cminimise\u201D versus \u201Cmitigate\u201D. That\u2019s been covered off in previous parts, but, again, \u201Cmitigate\u201D is a well-understood term, and in terms of consenting, issuing conditions to mitigate are well-understood. \u201CMinimise\u201D is far more onerous, and, again, it\u2019s not a well-understood term; it\u2019s not commonly used. It\u2019s not part of the resource management system right now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u0022fa9965176a854f9cf5c1ef54aaf97deb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fa9965176a854f9cf5c1ef54aaf97deb\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (20:10)\u003C/span\u003E: I just want to have a discussion around clause 140\u2014it\u2019s a really important issue, and, in particular, it\u2019s a really important issue in Canterbury\u2014\u201CMatters relevant to activities affecting drinking water supply source water\u201D. I guess the global question is the degree of importance of this, and, obviously, we know we haven\u2019t got bottom lines in this legislation, but \u201Chave regard to\u201D seems to be a very light degree of consideration when we\u2019re talking about drinking water. I\u2019m interested in why stronger words weren\u2019t used, such as \u201Cpreserve the integrity of\u201D or something along those lines.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other really important and difficult question here is \u201Cthe actual or potential effect of the proposed activity on the source of a drinking water supply\u201D. Now, Canterbury, as you may be aware, has artesian water supply, where the water travels over time, and it can travel actually quite slowly, but one of the real challenges is that drinking water, close to Christchurch, essentially comes from the bottom of the Alps and all of the land in between. When you\u2019re talking about the source of drinking water, it\u2019s actually a very large area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EObviously, there\u2019s a question in Canterbury about consenting dairy farms, and I think it\u2019s established that nitrates leach off dairy farms, and it is recorded\u2014the Environment Canterbury evidence is there\u2014that it is in the drinking-water supply. Now, we have an issue that you\u2019ve got a \u201Cmust have regard to\u201D, but also, if you\u2019re seeking to consent a farm in Springfield, about 50 kilometres from Christchurch, is that a farm where you need to take account of the fact that the rain that falls there is part of the source of the water that is being used in Christchurch and other areas close by? This is actually a really critical part of this piece of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI guess the other thing that strikes me is that it doesn\u2019t seem to be backed up by further legislation which is going to provide the guidance as to exactly what this means in terms of catchments and in terms of artesian wells versus river water, and so on and so forth. I\u2019m interested in: why just have \u201Cregard to\u201D, and on the \u201Csource of a drinking water supply\u201D, is that a term that you just going to leave, essentially, to, I guess, hydrologists to determine in expert reports, or does that have a particular meaning?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022e11ab66be57ae8d10293c5f096806d4f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e11ab66be57ae8d10293c5f096806d4f\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (20:13)\u003C/span\u003E: The clause the member the Hon Dr Duncan Webb refers to, clause 140, is a direct carry-over from the Resource Management Act. If the member had cared to inspect the clause further, it would be clear that the source water is covered under the Water Services Act and the \u201Csource of a drinking water supply\u201D is identified in a source water risk management plan prepared under that Act. It is right and proper that a consenting authority has regard to that. Thank you for bringing that to the committee\u2019s attention and to the attention of all those watching and listening this evening.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI just want to come back to an answer I gave previously in response to a question from Lawrence Xu-Nan. I just want to clarify that, in relation to submitters seeking to have a hearing, it\u2019s submitters that don\u2019t bear the cost of an independent hearings panel; the applicant does.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022269ce30fba47afb1ed45932e88a0efb8\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: OK. Thank you. I was having palpitations over here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226dc2c3304de513cee1a1cb0fb5163b50\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: Also, for the member Rachel Brooking, who apparently was having palpitations at my answer, I\u2019m clarifying it, and that is why the submitters cannot require a hearing. Apologies to members present; I just needed to clarify that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00224c65bb94165a541cfa8a9b2c478b9829\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224c65bb94165a541cfa8a9b2c478b9829\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (20:14)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I\u2019m still alive, and thank you to the member in the chair Simon Court. I\u2019m interested in his comments around \u201Cminimise\u201D being an unusual term that people weren\u2019t familiar with\u2014and, therefore, not using it\u2014and how that relates to the use of the term \u201Cpragmatic\u201D that we were discussing earlier.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAnyway, I will also come to Schedule 7, and this is a very simple question for the member in the chair, and that is if he can confirm, or point to, differences in Schedule\u00A07 from the equivalent clauses in the Resource Management Act. Is it largely the same, with some wording changes to work for this new legislation, or are there major policy deviations from the Resource Management Act in Schedule 7, which is \u201CSubdivision and reclamation\u201D? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022be3ef20e38713732eb6de8173b0b6495\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022be3ef20e38713732eb6de8173b0b6495\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (20:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to take the Minister responsible for RMA Reform to clause 145, which I\u2019m very happy about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002220cfe51bf747fcd0aeae603869c8d648\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Oh!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f50712a32a2115e9abb7cca7376c67a1\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m very happy about this clause, and so is Dr Xu-Nan, and I beat him there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMinister, I would like to talk to you about this. This was included in your regulatory impact statement as well, and officials drew attention to this because serial non-compliance is something that should be dealt with, and this clause attempts to do it. My first question is: why is the formulation of clause 145(1) a \u201Cmay\u201D and not a \u201Cmust\u201D, when it seems to be within the public interest and well supported around the Parliament\u2014I can hear on my left\u2014that regulators at all levels of the funnel should be able to take serial non-compliance into account?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second question is: you can understand the look-back provision being seven years for an ordinary person, a natural person, but why, for a body corporate, is it only seven years? That doesn\u2019t seem to make sense or have the same justifications when a body corporate, a company, a trust, or whatever it is will have a changing round of directors and should be held to account for having a higher standard of, say, documentation and compliance over that time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy next question is about clause 145(3)(a). I think we have got the policy wrong here: \u201Congoing\u201D and \u201Crepeated\u201D are important, but one has been excluded\u2014one big bad one is excluded\u2014and that is often the case of bodies corporate, say, making big errors in environmental degradation, dumping waste, and polluting ground. Those are also things that it seems relevant for the regulator to be able to consider, especially if that has happened recently and is of direct relationship to the consent that they are also applying for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to ask him about, then, the policy overall. In effect, all of these provisions working together means that the non-compliance has to be significant, it has to be ongoing, and it has to also be subject to an enforcement order\u2014so abatement notices and infringement notices seem to not be enough to trigger this position. Is that the right impact for something like a wharf? The usual way of punishing that behaviour will be abatement notices over and over and over again, and then to receive a planning consent for another extension of a wharf just seems like something which you should be able to take into account.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy final question is: does this actually solve the problem which is set out in the regulatory impact statement? In the 2018 case, where the Court of Appeal upheld imprisonment for the developer, which I think the regulatory impact statement is alluding to, there were a huge number of unauthorised dwellings. There was waste-water discharge of raw sewage into streams. It was cynical and deliberate, and the court found not only that there was a regulatory compliance culture of head in the sand but that this was behaviour which would keep going. The cost to the ratepayer to clean up the first stage of remediation was over $1\u00A0million. Eventually, they got him on the trees. They got him on the destruction of the trees at the property, not on any of those regulations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHave we dealt with the problem so that this natural person or body corporate wouldn\u2019t get a consent in the future? Also have we tidied up the infringements regime so that someone who has been repeatedly and deliberately breaking the rules can also be held to account and it doesn\u2019t take them cutting down, I think, six trees at their property to finally get there? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022b8f264a4272095c237f4218b8f19ca28\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b8f264a4272095c237f4218b8f19ca28\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019m just following on from Arena Williams\u2019 series of questions. I think they are exactly what I had in mind as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think one of the things I wanted to ask the Minister responsible for RMA Reform about further, as a package of that question from clause 145, is that abatement notices, enforcement orders, infringement notices, and pecuniary penalties for convictions are very different, with a varying degree of severity. I even wondered whether the cases that Arena Williams mentioned are really important when it comes to serial offenders or repeat offenders. Convictions are quite serious, and I wondered if the convictions in particular should have been carved out from this particular section, even if the consenting authority may have regard to the rest\u2014but \u201Cmust have regard to\u201D when it comes to convictions. I want to check with the Minister if that is something that has been considered as a part of this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do want to move on a little bit further to Subpart 5, noting that quite a few of the clauses may have been addressed by other members. This is to do with general requirements before conditions may be included. This is clause 150. I want to check clause 150(2), which says, \u201CA consent authority must not include a condition unless\u2014(aaa) the applicant has agreed to the condition;\u201D. I want to check with the Minister: I\u2019m assuming this particular case is when the applicant has been notified of the conditions that have been imposed, as opposed to there being some form of negotiation or compromise? I wondered if the condition was imposed as a result of certain potential or likely non-compliance within areas and that it\u2019s not really up to whether there is any wiggle room for compromise with the applicant.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do want to check, in that case, what does \u201Cagreed to the condition\u201D actually mean? Does it mean that someone has signed it? I\u2019ll leave it at that because the Minister looks like he\u2019s ready to answer questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00221ec411edc694580aedfef2722dc69e13\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221ec411edc694580aedfef2722dc69e13\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:22)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll deal with all these relatively quickly. The subdivision provisions are largely a carry-over from the Resource Management Act (RMA). In relation to Arena Williams\u2019 points, it says \u201Cmay\u201D not \u201Cmust\u201D, which again is a carry-over from the RMA.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe seven years point: I\u2019m advised that longer than seven years is hard to administer, and it comes from the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act. In relation to whether or not it solves the problem, yes, I am confident it does, particularly in relation to some of the cases that she was talking about, which I\u2019m unfamiliar with.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s point just now around clause 150(2)(aaa), this is just a simple statement of reality, which is that a consent authority can impose conditions if the applicant agrees. That is frequently what happens. It\u2019s happening at the moment in fast track, for example, in which people are applying and suggesting conditions to be imposed on them that avoid remedy, mitigate offset, and will provide compensation for adverse effects. Obviously, consent authorities can impose things if they agree to it, but you also need to read it in the light of the semicolon, after which it says \u201Cor (a) the condition contains measures \u2026 or (b) the condition is directly connected \u2026\u201D. It\u2019s a scheme that provides the setting of consent conditions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022899c2fc37b226176a9ec08aa5f9e1eea\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022899c2fc37b226176a9ec08aa5f9e1eea\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:23)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Now, I note that others may have additional questions on the clauses, but I\u2019m just checking with what was discussed previously, I believe, by the Chair: that we are going to now move on to the schedule. I would like to move on to some part of the schedule, noting that Schedule\u00A06 has already been covered to a certain extent. I want to move on to Schedule\u00A07 on subdivision and reclamation, which is quite significant, with, I believe, five parts to it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI would like to start on Part 1 of Schedule 5, relating to conditions of subdivision consent, starting with clause 6, which is on conditions requiring protection against natural hazards, and clause 7. Noting that the Hon Rachel Brooking has had some questions previously on natural hazards but none which relates to a subdivision consent, and I think, in this case, it needs to be checked that when we are looking at certain\u2014I guess for clarity to be in the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E and also to understand ministerial intent\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226d86f106b306d30e2553b1099c80d5c6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Is the member on Schedule 5?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022af66ed4a17355120a32a546ee9256a67\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m on Schedule 7.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d979053d4f84c4bcd3d15c2798d0799b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, Schedule 7.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002246e4dbc4f29506b36355e9e9cc110c27\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Schedule 7, which is clause 181.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229a489d392041f913680862ccb157149d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, my apologies. No, that\u2019s fine. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fe6858cf1f7000cb0b97242439ad4caf\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: This is page 398 of Amendment Paper 709.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a9179355f804386f3c0ae6158ff3ea74\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s fine.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f0e758fbb0e3094f83c893cc5953003c\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: I want to check whether the Minister responsible for RMA Reform has any thoughts around when you are getting a land use consent\u2014I want to get the terminology correct\u2014when it comes to protection against natural hazards and the subdivision consent, in this case; whether they will need to meet the same threshold between the two. Or would subdivision consent, being something that already kind of exists, require less scrutiny by the consenting authority\u2014when you\u2019re looking at subdivision, I\u2019m assuming? I just want to check with the Minister if that is something where there might be a difference between land use consent and subdivision consent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn terms of, I guess, clauses 7 and 8\u2014and this is to do with clause 8, \u201CConditions about vesting of bed of lake or river\u201D\u2014this may include conditions requiring that land that is a bed of a lake or river are to be vested in a territorial authority. Previously, we have seen that, when you\u2019re looking at the land use consent, if the territorial authority or the consenting authority receives an application, that application must also be sent to Maritime New Zealand. I wonder, in this particular case\u2014and I can give a reference for the other one, but in this particular case, it doesn\u2019t necessarily specify. I want to check with the Minister if, when you\u2019re applying for subdivision consent, the territorial authority or the consenting authority will also need to send that subdivision consent application to Maritime New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u002204ac156da3b510124e7923b39904ec34\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002204ac156da3b510124e7923b39904ec34\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:27)\u003C/span\u003E: Schedule 7, in relation to subdivision: in fact, the subdivision provisions in the bill are largely a carry-over from the Resource Management Act (RMA). I\u2019m advised that there were very few submissions at the Environment Committee in relation to this. It is largely a lift and shift, with a few tweaks on the way through, and the system works pretty well. The Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan has actually outlined some of the way the process works right now already in his own speech.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022 data-id=\u0022e5911a559a69f74d2c05105fb772f35b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e5911a559a69f74d2c05105fb772f35b\u0022\u003ECATHERINE WEDD (National\u2014Tukituki) (20:27)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cdedc8e621897f38b2ff737289c46634\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: There\u2019s a bit left in here, but we\u2019re getting there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u00223e00c6d974e01a5a117f8e6ec347a57b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223e00c6d974e01a5a117f8e6ec347a57b\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (20:27)\u003C/span\u003E: A fast pass through the conditions of planning consents questions\u2014the first is at clause 150. I want to ask about\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aebc9493cb02abae3e8022f6015dfc3c\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: Which one?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002262b4d3eebd2a59c05fd097c8f01e45ab\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS\u003C/span\u003E: Clause 150, on page 134, and I\u2019ll also ask you about clause\u00A0151. The consent conditions are three categories. They have to be whether the applicant agrees, whether they directly connect to the adverse effect that has been created by the consent, or whether they\u2019re only administrative. I\u2019m asking about the requirement that they are directly connected to the adverse effect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn a large housing development, you\u2019ll have ones that are obviously connected to that, and those are provided for here\u2014stormwater, roads\u2014but I want to ask you about whether you can, at the local authority level, require through the directly connected requirement things like parks, playgrounds, and spaces for early childhood education.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn clause 151, a similar question about the conditions you can actually impose\u2014I want to ask whether that is intended to provide an independent power to require environmental restoration or whether that\u2019s out in this regime. It\u2019s very common, for instance, to have a requirement in the consent where you would also be required to do planting or to do a restoration of wetland. The direct connection seems to take that out of the new regime.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022b31e5d1aa6adf29b5d484e225563a762\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b31e5d1aa6adf29b5d484e225563a762\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:29)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m advised that in relation to the parks point, the answer is yes\u2014if it is in the plan, for example.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e6e5f168e491dd1458d3e98689a231ef\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: So that\u2019s directly connected.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228b09e1b470673ab0c143341acce74131\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, if it\u2019s in the plan rule, yes, it is, because, following the funnel, you have to give effect to the plan rule. It might be, for example\u2014I\u2019m just making this up\u2014in a large subdivision, say, 100 lots, that there needs to be a park in the subdivision or the land re-zoned or anything. Some councils will do that; some won\u2019t. Some will set the threshold at different rates. There may be standardised zoning provisions which may assist with that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ESo the short answer is yes, but the point of the \u201Cdirect connection\u201D point is to make sure that people are doing things that are directly connected to the adverse effects of what they\u2019re doing. You can\u2019t impose conditions that aren\u2019t. The flipside is also true, which is that you could have conditions but they can\u2019t just be because the council feels like it; they have to be directly connected to the effects. To be honest, that\u2019s actually the status quo under the Resource Management Act, basically.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u002211e9aa4425de8b70819973ff25d46edd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002211e9aa4425de8b70819973ff25d46edd\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (20:30)\u003C/span\u003E: Just to follow up, then, I think that the answer to the question about clause 151\u2014is the power to require environmental restoration, say planting or restoration of a wetland, if it\u2019s in the plan, directly connected enough to meet the requirements at clauses 150 and 151?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00227f744752b35b1f6d95c7b7041a71f447\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227f744752b35b1f6d95c7b7041a71f447\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:31)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes is the short answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022784f4e929aed4ea6a05d1a10add6eccb\u0022 data-id=\u00228b01dbf28ca71a8c95dac357f8817e0d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022784f4e929aed4ea6a05d1a10add6eccb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228b01dbf28ca71a8c95dac357f8817e0d\u0022\u003ERYAN HAMILTON (National\u2014Hamilton East) (20:31)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222b7fead536ea4ec9cc6b2b0b43344193\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 4 set out on Amendment Paper 709 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a9bc6dd1728a1d886228f14e25925e2d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Oriini Kaipara\u2019s tabled amendments to clause 108 and 125 and inserting new clause 129A be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002530\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ca59f135e3ab054e26700f7568bda404\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Lan Pham\u2019s amendment to clause 131 set out on Amendment Paper 730 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 139(1)(d) inserting subparagraph (i) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Oriini Kaipara\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 149A to insert new subclauses (3) to (5) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Part 4 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 4 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022450f45d97782867ba29c1cdd686ad529\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u00228c3df14b6e1cb34ead9bb45c523b0c30\u0022\u003EPart 5 Key roles, and Schedules 9, 10, and proposed new Schedule 10A\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f46c0e83c7cba8d561ab61e248308a60\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come to Part 5, the debate on clauses 182 to 216, \u201CKey roles\u201D, including Schedule 9, \u201CEnvironment Court\u201D; Schedule\u00A010, \u201CPlanning Tribunal\u201D; and proposed new Schedule 10A, \u201CStatutory officer\u201D, in the Minister\u2019s tabled amendments. The question is that Part 5 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00225e6489a5c5309c13beb7542fc1ea9de8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225e6489a5c5309c13beb7542fc1ea9de8\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:36)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to start with clause 182 and clause 183, and I want to start with clause 182 first because, again, there have been numerous amendments in Amendment Paper 709.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to start by checking, in terms of  clause 182(e), where the Minister\u2019s function here has changed to a national instrument: can I just check, rather than having national policy direction or national standard, that\u2019s just an update for consistency, I\u2019m hoping\u2014checking with the Minister responsible for RMA Reform on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m also noting that paragraph (g) has changed quite substantially from the existing version and changed to \u201Cconsidering and investigating the use of fees, levies, incentives, \u2026 other fiscal measures and economic instruments under this Act\u201D. I want to check with the Minister: what\u2019s the rationale behind updating the language for that\u2014particularly when you\u2019re looking at fees and levies and incentives, other fiscal measures. This is something that we have been very aware of in the Regulations Review Committee, regarding the use of those particular methods when it comes to fees and levies in particular, so I do want to check that with the Minister. That\u2019s my second question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to move on to clause 183, noting that this potentially is possibly largely a carry-over from the existing legislation. I wanted to check: in this case, what would then be the interaction between the responsible Minister and the Minister of Conservation in their roles and jurisdictions as listed out in subclause (1)(a) and (b) and subclause (2)\u2014oh, here we go: \u201Cor imposed on that Minister by this Act.\u201D, yeah. I wondered if the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind just checking: what\u2019s the interaction between the Minister of Conservation and the responsible Minister?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022d5111b36f178028c670c1ae1e0d70a42\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d5111b36f178028c670c1ae1e0d70a42\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:38)\u003C/span\u003E: I think these can be dealt with relatively quickly. Clause 182: \u201Cnational instruments\u201D in the Act refers to national policy direction and national standards\u2014so, rather than say \u201Cnational policy direction\u201D and \u201Cnational standards\u201D, \u201Cnational instruments\u201D is a catch-all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to paragraph (g), it\u2019s just a redraft. It\u2019s just literally redrafting something\u2014old (g) is basically the same as new (g); it\u2019s just a drafting change from the Parliamentary Counsel Office.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 183, as the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, I think, notes, is just a reflection of the status quo from the Resource Management Act, which carries over into the new Act in relation to the Minister of Conservation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022 data-id=\u0022e2173b1ba696f1ab57bfe5ad4d4965f3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e2173b1ba696f1ab57bfe5ad4d4965f3\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B) (20:39)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to draw the Minister responsible for RMA Reform\u2019s attention to my proposed amendments to the amendments tabled by himself at 7.26 p.m. last evening. There\u2019s a number of amendments which address several linked problems\u2014what I believe are problems\u2014in the Government\u2019s scheme, and let me run through them. The first is that there\u2019s no common standard for council compliance and, looking at the Minister\u2019s amendment from last night, which is clearly an improvement on the amendment that was there before\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223f1f22b5cb95d3b9770d8c0bcfb5bc22\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, Mr Twyford, would I ask you to refer to the clause you\u2019re speaking to in your amendment?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229275365658e05d84c4368042849e3346\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: In my amendment, I\u2019m speaking to new clause 188B, which is the first of several in my amendment, and they\u2019re amendments to the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper 738 of last night, which is an improvement on what was there before. It says that in the case of councils responding to a determination that a land market is not competitive, the local authority must decide how it will address the matter and implement the decision in a timely manner.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe problem with this is that the council is required to decide how it will address an act or omission that contributed to an uncompetitive land market, but it doesn\u2019t specify or set any kind of standard for what an adequate response looks like. The problem with it, essentially, is that the council that contributed to the problem is, effectively, left to judge whether its own remedy is sufficient. So that\u2019s the first problem.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second, I think, is that there\u2019s no objective or enforceable timetable. The Minister\u2019s amendment requires implementation in\u2014quote, unquote\u2014\u201Ca timely manner\u201D, but there\u2019s no deadline or common test of timeliness. Councils could respond inconsistently or defer meaningful action through lengthy processes, and that\u2019s easy to imagine. Simply tying the council\u2019s duties under proposed new clause 118B to a future compliance network and national direction risks weakening the immediate duty, because that framework will take some time to prepare. I\u2019m going to address that point by basically putting in interim obligations until the framework is there. The Minister\u2019s amendment doesn\u2019t require the national direction that\u2019s put in place to contain a defined compliance framework by a fixed date, nor does it specify the framework\u2019s minimum content or require it to be reviewed in the case of a negative determination, which would potentially expose the deficiency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, I think the other problem is that there\u2019s no balanced independent check on the framework. You would expect that the land market officer responsible for assessing land market competitiveness would have some kind of role in testing the framework. Conversely, you wouldn\u2019t want to give the land market officer unlimited approval power or, effectively, a veto. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat my amendment sets out to do is, in new clause 188B, say that the council must decide how it will address the matter if the competitive urban land market compliance framework under new clause 188C has been included in national policy direction in accordance with that framework. If the national direction is in place, the council must work out what it\u2019s going to do in accordance with that national policy direction. If, however, the framework has not yet been included in the national policy direction, it must do so by having regard to the determination of the land market officer. So that\u2019s proposed new clause 188B(2)(a). \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002564\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen, secondly, the council must implement the decision, if that framework specifies an applicable time frame, within that time frame. If the national direction includes a time frame, it must address that within the time frame or, if not\u2014in any other case\u2014in a timely manner. I really would be interested in the Minister\u2019s view on this. It\u2019s an attempt to preserve and put in place an effective duty\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002202db50987618e7f55ca5ab10d1feae83\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The member\u2019s time has expired.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022be4a00a31f84d9c3a717b27b0cfc8825\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022be4a00a31f84d9c3a717b27b0cfc8825\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:45)\u003C/span\u003E: I appreciate what the member\u2019s trying to do and, as I\u2019ve indicated previously, last night, probably around this time, I have great sympathy for what he\u2019s trying to do; agree with much of it. We won\u2019t be supporting his amendment. There\u2019s a few reasons. I mean, he says that the judge of the competitiveness of the land markets will become the council who created the problem in the first place. I don\u2019t think, with respect, that is correct. The judge is the economic umpire, the statutory land market officer, and, as I said last night, we\u2019ve got to get the balance right between\u2014because there\u2019s now essentially going to be three players in all of this: there\u2019s going to be the council, the land market officer, and the Minister. The council and the community set the plan; the independent umpire\u2014\u00E0 la the Reserve Bank of New Zealand in relation to monetary policy, or the Commerce Commission in relation to price quality, regulation of water, and various different things\u2014makes assessments; and there will be an assessment framework that has to be established. Then there\u2019s national standards, and I referred the member last night to national policy direction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe judge is not the council; the judge is the land market officer, and then the ongoing judgment about whether or not the response from the council meets the competitiveness tests is still the umpire, and the final kind of piece of the puzzle is the Minister, who has a more restrained role in the new system around intervention\u2014and that\u2019s actually by design. I hope we can agree: the last five or six years of Ministers battling with councils about land-use changes\u2014and I had to go through it with Plan Change 120 in Wellington to a lesser extent, although people seem to care less about Wellington. Christchurch was another thing, where I just found myself in a statutory position of having to make these assessments, because that\u2019s what the law said. Trying to try and explain it to the media was sometimes difficult, because that\u2019s what the law said. Ministers find themselves having to make legal decisions all the time that they don\u2019t necessarily even know they were required to make, but that\u2019s OK. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Plan Change 120 debate is relatively bruising for everybody. The member Phil Twyford who\u2019s moving the amendment put an intervention, as Associate Minister alongside David Parker, into the Christchurch Council at the time in relation to their plan. It\u2019s an uncomfortable position for Ministers to be in, and I think getting Ministers out of being the primary intervener on this\u2014they still have the power in some circumstances; you still need to have that, but we\u2019re redressing the balance somewhat so there\u2019s someone in the middle who is making the assessment and the councils are the ones doing the responses. I mean, there\u2019s room for debate about whether or not we\u2019ve got that balance right. There\u2019s some fleshing out of the national policy direction to do, which I think is important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to time frames, I\u2019m advised that they can be set through regulations. More generally, this goes, I suppose, to a fundamental\u2014maybe\u2014distinction between members as to where various provisions should be in the funnel between the primary legislation, the national policy direction, the standards, and the regulations. There is room for debate around what should be in what, and we\u2019ve tried to adopt a principled approach, which is: keep the funnel structure in place, and national direction is a national direction. That sort of fleshing out of that, particularly around standards, comes below\u2014we can have an argument about what should be in primary legislation and what isn\u2019t. I think we\u2019ve got the balance about right. We can always come back to it. I\u2019m not completely ill-disposed to what the member is proposing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022 data-id=\u0022b78159224c9b4b5a0efec02fe57d1500\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b78159224c9b4b5a0efec02fe57d1500\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B) (20:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, OK, but my amendment also proposes a new clause 188C, which would require a competitive urban land market compliance framework to be included in the national policy direction within 12 months after the commencement of that section. That currently doesn\u2019t exist, and I\u2019m a little baffled as to why the decision has been made not to put that kind of requirement into this bill. If the current Minister is in this particular role, I can see that this kind of thing would happen, but we\u2019re trying to set up a durable legislative framework here that will effectively steward the development and the implementation of competitive labour markets a long time into the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002571\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI would have thought that the requirement as set out in new clause 188C that you do have a compliance framework in place means that within a period of time from commencement, there will be, effectively, a mandate and a context for the land market officer and for councils to operate. If that\u2019s not a good idea, I\u2019m interested to hear why the Minister thinks so. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u002257ab40b486b7d301002007debc2e651f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002257ab40b486b7d301002007debc2e651f\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:50)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to continue focusing my contributions in this part mostly on the amendments that the Minister has made on Amendment Paper 709. The first one is new clause 183B, which is a new addition on the delegation of functions by the Minister to the Environmental Protection Authority. I do want to check in this case, when we\u2019re looking at the delegation\u2014and this may have been referred to, but it\u2019s a new clause section here\u2014on what would be the degree that the Minister may consider in terms of that particular delegation, because even though its function is to monitor the implementation of the effects of this bill, it is still reasonably broad. So I do want to check what the scope of that monitoring is in clause 183B.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do want to check clause 184A, where there is the insertion of new subclauses (1A) and (3). I want to start with new subclause (1A), which is around \u201C(b) may perform its functions to control aquaculture activities in the coastal marine area\u201D, particularly when it comes to the \u201Ceffects of aquaculture activities on fishing and fisheries resources.\u201D Now, this can also be quite broad because, as we know, for certain intensive aquaculture areas, it has a broader impact on the fish stock in the general area, particularly when it comes to marine pollution, etc., and the way that aquaculture itself can be conducted. We\u2019ve seen that both domestically and also in overseas jurisdictions. I do want to check, then, in terms of new subclause (1A)(b) of clause 184A, what would be the expected or, I guess, the reasonable scope for regional councils when they\u2019re looking at that particular effect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn new subclause (3), I just want to clarify this particular point: does it mean that a regional council in considering whether the proposed activity would give effect to public access \u201Cto and along the coastal marine area\u201D, it does not need to technically comply with subclause (2) in that case? Would that be the correct reading of new subclause (3)? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I want to leave section 18 of the Natural Environment Act to the next bill, but I just wanted to ask in this case whether it is the correct reading that if a regional authority considered that public access to or along coastal marine areas is of vital importance, they can disregard what is in subclause (2). That\u2019s, I believe, three questions to the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00228a345e6460f13c0fa4092300dc7ff24f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228a345e6460f13c0fa4092300dc7ff24f\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:54)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m not 100 percent sure it was three questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002264f3cc26584f54d03023ce3ddc5a128a\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, there were two before that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022664ee7bfb89b4380a2dd5468b906f966\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, I missed those, I\u2019m sorry, but I\u2019m sure other people were listening. While we work out the answer to new clause 184A(3)\u2014I think the answer is yes, by the way, but we will clarify it in the interests of transparency\u2014I just want to deal with Mr Twyford\u2019s point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAs I understand it, he\u2019s basically proposing we set a 12-month bar. His current tabled amendment, as I read it, is a lot deeper than that. I\u2019m prepared to consider a tabled amendment that limits to just the 12 months, I think\u2014I just want to take a bit of time on that. There\u2019s a money issue. Times are tight, in case he hadn\u2019t noticed, and so I just want to be reassured that we could do it within the resources available, because it creates a\u2014we haven\u2019t got the money for the statutory land market officer yet. That\u2019s subject to a future October Baseline Update and March Baseline Update. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228aff8bba4bc9af4961e21cf2fa62c031\u0022\u003EHon Phil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s why it\u2019s a movable feast.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227fe2a0084301f083763f9e17e3b2c6c2\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, a little bit\u2014a little bit. But it\u2019s OK; we\u2019ll get there. I mean, we\u2019re not\u2014you know, in the time I\u2019ve been speaking, the New Zealand Government has spent tens of millions of dollars, and so I think we can make it work. We\u2019ll get there, and so I\u2019m prepared to contemplate a 12-month amendment. I just want to have a think about that and take a little bit of advice, and so I\u2019m not committing to it. But if we don\u2019t support the amendment, I will commit that we will have one in place within 12 months\u2014that\u2019s certainly my intention. It\u2019s absolutely very important for the reasons the member has outlined, and so I\u2019ll just contemplate that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022 data-id=\u0022512ee200e438dc6041bc5ab6cec3c674\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022512ee200e438dc6041bc5ab6cec3c674\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B) (20:56)\u003C/span\u003E: Can I ask the Minister, in that case, whether or not, alongside specifying a 12-month time frame, he would agree with some of the points made under new clause 188C(3), which set out some of the parameters? It doesn\u2019t set actual content, but it does set out the parameters of what would be included in a land market compliance framework.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u002292cb79c7d05ba61d8dfbd63669b86e9c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002292cb79c7d05ba61d8dfbd63669b86e9c\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (20:56)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Right, I think this is my first contribution on Part 5, \u201CKey roles\u201D, and I\u2019m going to start at the start. On Amendment Paper 709, right up the front, in clause 182, \u201CFunctions of Minister\u201D, it says that \u201CThe Minister has the following functions under this Act: (a) recommending the making of a national instrument\u201D. Now the word \u201Capproval\u201D has been struck out and replaced with \u201Cmaking\u201D, but I think that is semantics. When you read through the rest of the bill, it\u2019s to do with how the Minister gives the Governor-General a recommendation, and then she makes an Order in Council.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAn important and fundamental point to the whole system is how important the role of the Minister is here with regard to the national instrument. Sure, the Governor-General has to make an Order in Council, but it is on the recommendation of the Minister, and I would just like to put to the Minister that in another part I had suggested a board of inquiry process for the Minister. I\u2019m not sure if the Minister responsible for RMA Reform was in the chair for that, but I would be interested in his views on a board of inquiry where a recommendation was made by the board of inquiry, or the board of inquiry makes a recommendation to the Minister\u2014which I think is what my amendment was\u2014and then the Minister makes the recommendation to the Governor-General. That should give the Minister some cover against, one, being lobbied\u2014that\u2019s a real thing, and I\u2019m not saying that about this Minister; just any Minister\u2014and, two, against judicial review proceedings, as well. That\u2019s one set of questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00223edb06b0bae1a779f1df7991051a13a3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223edb06b0bae1a779f1df7991051a13a3\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:58)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Twyford asked if I\u2019d agree with his clause 188(3)(a), (b), and (c), or clause 188(c) amendment, actually\u2014his points around the framework. The short answer is yes, and the national direction released on Monday contains much of that. I mean, it\u2019s an illustrative draft, and so I will welcome his feedback, alongside other competitive urban land market legends, on the national policy direction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s a small subset of people in this country who care about it. Phil Twyford is one of them, I\u2019m the second, and I can probably name them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227d19573a8ba4d8283b17374978c8ea2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e7261f2538244addd6c4c90331e718e2\u0022\u003EGrant McCallum\u003C/span\u003E: Nick Smith\u2014would he be one of them?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fa51db3f3c5e64662d616e961a230a2d\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: No, Nick Smith is not a competitive land market legend. Benno Blaschke, Chris Parker\u2014that\u2019s Treasury\u2014Dr Eric Crampton, Hannah Ouellet, who works for me. Who else?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e3eef08856cb06f627eb0935fdb842ef\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I think we\u2019ve drifted off the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f9a3188b35c6a7bb0071adb1e797cafe\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: We have\u2014we have. Kirdan Lees\u2014I just wanted to give them a shout-out. They\u2019ve done God\u2019s work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ERighty-o. The short answer is, yes, I agree. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to the key roles\u2014yes, sorry, Rachel Brooking\u2019s question. Yeah, so I wasn\u2019t in the chair for that session, although I have been having an extended dialogue with the Rt Hon Simon Upton about this point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002265fc79a68a1c90eb5e5e5ab5ee0ac0d0\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: I might have seen him today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a38692ef4382ad079ff096e128f8e30c\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: What?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222aa624fafc75e736e376ce3adea49bad\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Who I saw today\u2014he was in.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002228cdf650dfaf8f99c7bc87490c9e1b3e\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: You saw him today?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226a83072c9c864066d13b9ea0da1d5c7f\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: He was in at lunchtime.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022660c961564e6ca2f51247d550edfd553\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Of course he was\u2014yeah. So Simon Upton has been in dialogue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELook, I\u2019m not opposed to it. I think the point I would make is that some people seem to have discovered that the Government has powers of national direction, just in, like, the last kind of two months. People have suddenly woken up to the fact that the Government, via the Minister, can issue national direction. That\u2019s always been in the Resource Management Act (RMA), and, actually, the failure of the RMA, arguably\u2014in fact, many people say this from 1990 to 2007, really\u2014was that we didn\u2019t do any of that; we just left it over to the councils, and the Government was not didactic enough about the fact that renewable energy in a country blessed with abundant renewable resources should be easier to develop than it is, you know?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe didn\u2019t get serious, frankly, about urban land markets until the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity, which was a Nick\u2014actually, that was a Nick Smith thing, so maybe he is a semi-legend on the competitive land market front\u2014but then Mr Twyford supercharged things with the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020. That was central government recognising that land markets matter and urban density matters for our cities and productivity and growth and all the things mentioned in it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo national direction is there now. What we are trying to do is create a much more coherent document so that you don\u2019t have to go to the Ministry for the Environment\u2014or the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport as it is now\u2014website, and print off some ridiculous PDF, and the terms are different and they don\u2019t match. It\u2019s all in one place: it\u2019s called New Zealand\u2019s Planning System National Policy Direction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002270843ae8b4be1b20c037ce510088ff1e\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, like our National Planning Framework.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220eedc504df652411fae303d5c3273e24\u0022\u003EHon Damien O\u0027Connor\u003C/span\u003E: Ha, ha!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002215fca2935adb6adcd2d0989d009f1dae\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229a2281b916303eb13b586793675cc552\u0022\u003EHon Damien O\u0027Connor\u003C/span\u003E: Come on!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226690ba0341f1292bbbcda37c50b10829\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, that\u2019s what it looks like.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c69763de5346528ccb84d70a1513c96a\u0022\u003EHon Damien O\u0027Connor\u003C/span\u003E: Until the lawyers get hold of it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002284d4ab2bcd55b34fae34611bd0c91125\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: No, no, no\u2014well, yeah, maybe you\u2019re right. But there is a merit in being able to pick it up\u2014pick it up\u2014and say, \u201CRighty-O, I\u2019m a council, what am I required to do?\u201D \u201CHousing and development\u201D. \u201CThe planning system plays a key role in allowing more people to live well in our \u2026 cities.\u201D \u201CSub-themes\u201D: \u201CCompetitive urban land markets\u201D, \u201CWell-functioning urban areas\u201D, \u201CWell-functioning rural areas\u201D, and \u201CNatural hazards\u201D. Directives: \u201CTo enable competitive \u2026 land markets: a) spatial plans must identify an abundance of areas for urban development, so there is no expectation of scarce land supply for future development.\u201D That is a draft directive to councils around spatial planning.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere is a natural hazard theme, which is on page 23. \u201Cland use plans must ensure natural hazard risks associated with housing and development are managed by: a) using an approach that is proportionate to the level of natural hazard risk\u201D. Now, this actually is already the law. There is a National Policy Statement Natural Hazards. Much of the grunt work was done by the previous Government; we picked it up and put it in place, we made a few tweaks. The devil\u2019s in the detail with this stuff.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EInfrastructure\u2014there is a \u201CPolicy intent\u201D. There is a strategic infrastructure priority: \u201CTo enable the timely and efficient delivery of new infrastructure \u2026 land use plans \u2026 must: a) recognise and provide for the national, regional and local benefits of infrastructure\u201D. Now, that picks up on the work that we did in the last year or so on the National Policy Statement for Infrastructure, which we didn\u2019t have\u2014central government did not send a clear message through the planning system architecture that infrastructure is not a nice-to-have; it\u2019s a must-have. Yes, there\u2019s obviously things you have to balance against that: you know, wind farms create\u2014you know, birds die; and, you know, building the roads, you\u2019ve got to manage the effects of building a road; and there\u2019s frogs and lizards and skinks and all that stuff that you have to worry about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227bbc4ae8272d2934fc1b3af9e1be4824\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Bats.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222bd7429d54c37b7655b0e5e91f89de88\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Bats, yes. I draw the line at the dolphin funnel that the Auckland Council is demanding for the building of the North West bus rapid transit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fc459a31927885b43c39be9581e3b0aa\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003EOh, wow.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226038ed7dadf35bbab1a2c804fae8451e\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: I know, I kid you not\u2014I kid you not. So you have to take account of all those things, but there\u2019s been no way to take account of that in the system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002615\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWe already have national direction, and, actually, everybody agrees with national direction because everyone supports the idea of a renewable energy thing, everyone supports an infrastructure thing. Actually, one of the great untold success stories of the last three years is alongside fast track, and this series of bills, is the biggest series of changes to national direction ever in the RMA. I got pretty disgruntled when I saw \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThe Dom \u003C/span\u003Eeditorial\u2014oh, sorry, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThe Post\u003C/span\u003E, as it now is\u2014\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThe Post\u003C/span\u003E editorial saying, \u201COh, well, the Government stopped focusing on fast track and took their eye off the ball.\u201D, neglecting that we now have a National Policy Statement for Infrastructure, we now have a strengthened national policy statement renewable, we now, for the first time in New Zealand history, have national standards for papa k\u0101inga housing, for example, which has been a dog\u2019s breakfast up and down the country, where councils have made all sorts of weird and wacky random rules around the simple proposition that mana whenua should be able to use their own land to build papa k\u0101inga housing, so we now have national standards in relation to that, and I acknowledge the Hon Tama Potaka\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002293df8411d3835978028a400799f8a839\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Minister, can you remind me what question you\u2019re answering?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002240546a28c1292bdef762adc28e424a8a\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m answering the question around the ministerial powers in relation to national direction and in relation to boards of inquiry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe now have electric vehicle \u2013 charging standards, for example. I mean, why do you need to go and get a resource consent to put the same charge net, or Merdian charger in, in council car parks? It\u2019s nuts! Well, now you don\u2019t have to, because they\u2019re permitted activities under the RMA and they\u2019ll carry over with the new thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m not opposed to the idea of boards of inquiry and feeding into the power of the Minister, but I would just point out that there\u2019s quite a bit of stuff in there already. The member referenced it herself in relation to\u2014clause 61, isn\u2019t it?\u2014the making of national instruments. There has to be various different reports and, firstly, they\u2019ve got to follow the goals and you\u2019ve got to notify everybody. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELook, I\u2019m not opposed to the idea that there should be some more separate processes, but I just reject this idea wholesale that national direction is new; it isn\u2019t. I reject the idea that it is the arrogation of power to the Minister or central government. This is sort of like ill-informed commentary: this is like untrammelled power for the Minister to do all these various different things. It\u2019s not accurate\u2014it\u2019s not accurate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u002233ebdee2f53e0a727dc5c4dc71100023\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002233ebdee2f53e0a727dc5c4dc71100023\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (21:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I might respond to that contribution from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, given that he\u2019s raised these issues. I\u2019ve got just some little points to make. I\u2019m very pleased to hear that the Minister would consider some additional mechanisms to be available for making national instruments. That is good. I don\u2019t know where in the process he would put them now, given we have covered off that part, but I\u2019m sure we could find a solution to that if he wanted to do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002622\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI would also note that I agree with the Minister that there has been national direction before, and I agree that it is mind-boggling\u2014is that a word? I don\u2019t think it is: mind-something\u2014that that national direction was inconsistent with other national directions. Clearly a totally inefficient process. So it is good that it is being put in one instrument and that, of course, is what\u2014and the Minister can count how many times I\u2019ve said this now\u2014the Natural and Built Environment Act was doing: a planning and national planning framework for that very reason. I would just remind the Minister of that and, of course, the work being done on that infrastructure national direction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is good that we can agree that it\u2019s important, but what the Minister was reading out before\u2014and I have not gone through his new draft document, because I\u2019ve been in the Chamber\u2014a lot of what he just read out then did sound like clauses that we\u2019ve been traversing in this legislation, so I\u2019m not sure how much meat it was putting on the bones. There may be many other parts of it that do put meat on the bones. It\u2019s that meat on the bones that is important in terms of making sure there is\u2014there is\u2014some good mechanisms and some good process, because if the Minister is going to put dramatic meat on the bones\u2014this is a very strange metaphor that I\u2019m giving here, but I\u2019m going to go with it anyway\u2014then, the Minister might want some covering. So I\u2019m glad that he has said that he would look at another mechanism to give some safeguards there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002624\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I will move on to some new questions on this part. One is just a general question about clause 186, which is \u201CMonitoring and information gathering\u201D and there\u2019s also regulations can prescribe that monitoring and reporting. I\u2019m not sure if there is any substantive difference in the change at new subclause (4).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy question to the Minister is: how does he see this relating to something that he\u2019s mentioned in other contributions about the digitalisation of data, and where that data sits? He\u2019s described it in the past as being a significant proportion of Vote Environment. How does that relate to this monitoring and information-gathering role? That\u2019s one question. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI will go on, across to clause 193, which is \u201CTransfer of Powers\u201D. This reads to me that it\u2019s very similar to section 33 of the Resource Management Act (RMA), but of course it doesn\u2019t include iwi authorities. If the Minister can confirm that that is the difference\u2014clause 193, similar to section 33, but sans, without, the iwi authorities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002627\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat leads into\u2014and I\u2019ll stop at this one before we get into iwi participation agreements\u2014clause 197, which is \u201CJoint Management Agreements\u201D\u2014again, very similar to what is found in the RMA, but, again, it\u2019s just public authorities and there\u2019s no mention of iwi authorities. So the question is: is the main difference between section 33 of the RMA and clause 197, \u201CJoint Management Agreements\u201D, and the relevant section that\u2019s fallen out of my head of the RMA that removal of iwi authorities? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022 data-id=\u00221c9cedffb4ef1ccc6f3b629538a7876f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221c9cedffb4ef1ccc6f3b629538a7876f\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B) (21:11)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m keen to take up what was\u2014if I heard correctly\u2014an offer from the Minister to do some more work on this amendment. If I heard correctly, the Minister\u2019s not up for our new clause 188B, which I think he thinks is a bit draconian. It would require councils to address the matter within the terms of the urban land market compliance framework and national direction, so we\u2019ll put that to one side.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002629\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf I heard correctly, the Minister is agreeable with the idea of a requirement to ensure that the compliance framework is included in national policy direction no later than 12 months after commencement. What I\u2019m keen to know is whether or not, alongside that 12 months\u2019 provision, including some of the basic parameters of the compliance framework would assist the process in his view. Then there\u2019s a couple of other matters of principle that I\u2019m interested in the Minister\u2019s view on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClearly, one wouldn\u2019t want this framework to be a licence for central government to write every zoning map, and I know that\u2019s not his intention. Clause 188C(5) in my amendment expressly prevents the compliance framework from requiring a land-use plan to include or exclude specific plan provisions. The national direction is intended, I think, to supply a kind of discipline here\u2014a particular meaning of competitive land market goals, directions on how plans must avoid contributing to an uncompetitive market, required outcomes and time frames after an adverse determination by the land market officer, and so on. Does the Minister agree that national direction should set the outcome and time frames, while leaving the council to pursue the particular plan provisions that they want? Also, I\u2019d be interested to know whether he accepts that the framework must be capable of addressing different degrees of competitiveness\u2014or uncompetitiveness\u2014rather than the three options that were included in his amendment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002631\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other issue of principle, I think, is the idea that the independent land market officer should have some say in the development of the national compliance network that he or she will be responsible for operating under. In my amendment, I\u2019ve proposed a series of provisions on page 2 that are designed to set out a process by which the Minister can\u2019t just impose the compliance framework. The Minister is required to get agreement in the first instance from the land market officer, who\u2019s going to be the independent expert here, but while not giving the land market officer an indefinite veto. That process is there to try and put in place a kind of balance that respects the Minister\u2019s overall governance and leadership role while respecting the independence expertise of the land market officer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00220d2ac38101ca1b170a4842e4e3e8b2a1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220d2ac38101ca1b170a4842e4e3e8b2a1\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (21:15)\u003C/span\u003E: The short answer is yes, and I accept that the new Schedule 10A in my Amendment Paper 709 looked binary, but in reality, I suspect they will not be. The statutory officer may make one of the following determinations: competitive or competitive. The truth is, there are obviously things in the middle of that, and my expectation will be that they say that, and at an appropriate juncture we may need to return to make that clear.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002633\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think if you read it in the context of clause 3(4), a statutory officer must publish a determination with the following statement of reasons, factors contributing to that, why, etc., so I think it\u2019ll become clear.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to his tabled amendment, or Arena Williams\u2019s tabled amendment, the problem with it is that, firstly, the competitive urban land market compliance framework is a new thing. My amendment talks about the assessment framework, which is a legal requirement for the statutory officer to establish. The question is that there\u2019s no time frame for that, but certainly the intention is that be done quickly, because it\u2019s part of the scheme that we\u2019re developing. I think we could try and get it in place within 12 months. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to Rachel Brooking\u2019s questions, yes, clause 193 and clause 197, in relation to transfer of powers and joint management agreements, the iwi authorities are not included in that, on the basis that we wanted them to only be able to be included with public authorities with elected members. That is a deliberate change. In relation to her point around data, yes; this is a bit outside the scope of the bill but relevant to the extent around the compliance monitoring and the system data functions. The new digital system\u2014for which we\u2019re yet to invent a name, but I welcome suggestions, maybe not now\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022616a7c22f1f461e68eaa82347a279aad\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: \u201CBishop Start-Up\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fdc6e2f2d805db3d0c78911b95f610aa\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Bishop Start-Up?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002638\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b78b103ed211793e7fa2af63e6450bcc\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: \u201CBishop Moves\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002639\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f9b566377e177045a5d932fd35555a8a\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: No, no, we can do better than that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002640\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002243bea0071241950d36763c5fa3aa9b5d\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: OK, well I welcome your feedback. The new digital system will provide rich data\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002641\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224e42b58c2b53a150562fbc26b165a1be\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: \u201CBishop\u2019s Bits!\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a239bf216fa172533981e5110967f7c4\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s that? What\u2019s that one? No, OK, you don\u2019t want that one on the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E record? Let\u2019s hope they didn\u2019t catch that, because if I respond, it\u2019s in the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E, so let\u2019s hope they didn\u2019t hear it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002643\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226afde854d69135b4bb85049f7cc8913b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I think you just responded.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d45b4a47e23a0f1cd46e571d60971a9b\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Let\u2019s look forward to that one. It will provide a rich vein of data for the system. That\u2019s partly what we\u2019re doing here. There\u2019s big investment coming in, big investment, to be honest. There\u2019s a lot of councils very worked up about the new planning system\u2014which I understand up to a point\u2014but what some of them seem to have neglected is that central government is making a sizeable investment\u2014hundreds of millions of dollars over time\u2014into standing up the back-end system that they will be able to use. It will take the take the pressure off them\u2014going off and spending millions on IT upgrades for 78 different systems around the country. We\u2019re entering the modern world here. It\u2019s a Government IT project, so it\u2019s got a wee way to go. There\u2019s been some experiences on that, but I\u2019ve got confidence in the team. We\u2019re working hard\u2014I covered all that off last night, so there\u2019s no point going further into that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022 data-id=\u00221ee3f8c5b4f4b6a48478e40310fcc131\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002645\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221ee3f8c5b4f4b6a48478e40310fcc131\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR (Labour) (21:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. For the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, for something completely different, I\u2019ll just take him back to clause 184. This is just really a result of, I guess, a previous life and some work that was done in the House, and it\u2019s around the duties of territorial authorities. It relates to clause 184(2) here\u2014that, in undertaking its duties, the territorial authority must look at \u201C(c) public access to and along the coastal marine area, lakes, and rivers:\u201D. I guess my question for the Minister is: with the directives, is he going to offer more clarity than had been the case in legislation for quite some time? And I guess that that goes back to what\u2019s been called the Queen\u2019s Chain.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPublic access, or the assumption of public access, to waterways and lakes hasn\u2019t been a reality across much of the country, and so the previous Labour Government did set up the Walking Access Commission, but it\u2019s actually now the Outdoor Access Commission, and it\u2019s charged with trying to negotiate where there are blockages of access\u2014as assumed by many of the public\u2014to these waterways. My question to the Minister is: will we get a clearer outcome when there is subdivision and when we have territorial authorities overseeing what is rightfully identified in this piece of legislation as a responsibility, alongside outstanding natural features and landscapes\u2014and I won\u2019t get into that. But, for public access to and along coastal marine areas, lakes, and rivers, will that be an improved regime?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve got to acknowledge that the Government is certainly being ambitious in this area. Although I think that with the Minister getting up and showing us that humble little document that he had in his hand there and saying, \u201CThis is going to solve everything.\u201D\u2014there are many things that the Minister has been called, but naive is not one of them, and when I look at the paper here in front of me, which forms the basis of the legislation we\u2019re passing, things are not going to be simple. I\u2019ve said before to the Minister that he doesn\u2019t have to reply, but he can if he likes. Can he give us a guarantee that there\u2019ll be less litigation over all of these things than we\u2019ve seen through the Resource Management Act\u2014or, indeed, more, as I predict?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002648\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll come back to the key question, which, really, is the one around public access and whether the Government and the Minister are taking the opportunity to improve that and offer some clarity over what are changing waterways across the country. There\u2019ll be some irrigation canals that, effectively, are privately owned but are public water, and then the question is: are they available now for fishing or other activities that the public would assume they are? Indeed, that\u2019s a real dilemma in places like the Mackenzie. I\u2019ll leave it to the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u002288f258f927a5554adf6c9a84fd68dcfc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002288f258f927a5554adf6c9a84fd68dcfc\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (21:22)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m advised that this relates to the requirements for esplanade reserves when subdividing next to rivers and lakes. It has the same approach as in the Resource Management Act (RMA).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002650\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to Damien O\u2019Connor\u2019s questions around litigation\u2014well, firstly, just on the national policy direction, I\u2019m not claiming for a moment that this is the answer to everything. If that were true, we would have solved the RMA problems 30 years ago. We haven\u2019t, but it is a step forward, I hope, and you\u2019ve got to start somewhere. It is complicated. As I said to some colleagues the other day, there are about eight people in the country who understand the RMA. I\u2019m not sure I\u2019m one of them and I\u2019m the Minister, and so that probably tells you all you need to know.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe are trying to simplify things. It is complicated. Will there be litigation? Yes. Will it be a bit frustrating? Yes. I am sure there are environmental lawyers salivating at the prospect of getting involved in resource management law again, with a whole new statutory regime, national direction, and all the rest of it, but we are trying to make things as clear as possible through the funnel system, which has been widely discussed already.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022784f4e929aed4ea6a05d1a10add6eccb\u0022 data-id=\u0022511943e61223f27c84b13cb849c6a5dd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022784f4e929aed4ea6a05d1a10add6eccb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022511943e61223f27c84b13cb849c6a5dd\u0022\u003ERYAN HAMILTON (National\u2014Hamilton East) (21:23)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b8241bf9d0db1de4d04da66dfddce9ed\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: You\u2019re a funny guy! Lawrence Xu-Nan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00224e290d13d5a6f78478b3a0026ff98b0d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224e290d13d5a6f78478b3a0026ff98b0d\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (21:24)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to thank the Minister responsible for RMA Reform for his responses to my questions thus far; I think they\u2019ve been very helpful. To the Minister\u2019s final comment: in terms of people potentially watching, or in the future referring to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard, having the ministerial intent is really handy, and potentially will provide further clarity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002655\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do have two other questions. Please correct me if I\u2019m wrong, Minister, if this has already been answered, but the new subclause (4) that\u2019s been added in clause 186 added specific requirements when you\u2019re looking at \u201Cmonitoring, reporting, and information gathering for the purposes of this section\u201D, things like \u201C(a) indicators or other matters\u201D and \u201C(b) standards and methods that apply to the monitoring.\u201D Can I just check with the Minister on why the Amendment Paper 709 added specificity for that clause?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe next one I\u2019m looking at is clause 197(4), and again this is a new insertion on Amendment Paper 709. This is page 160, and it\u2019s to do with the definition of a joint management agreement (JMA). I\u2019ve checked, and there\u2019s been other times where joint management agreement has been used as well, but it says\u2014in the context of this clause, i.e., clause 197 and clause 198, this will now be the definition for JMAs. There possibly is a definition for JMAs in other clauses, so I just want to check that any other use of JMA that\u2019s not in clause 197 or clause 198 will be defined under whatever definition of JMA is in other areas, and this definition is specifically just for clause 197 and clause 198. If that is the case, will the Minister also explain what the difference is between this definition of JMA, specifically to clause 197 and clause 198, compared to other uses of JMA?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, I just want to seek a clarification from you, Madam Chair. There have been previous discussions around the policy intent of statutory officers and the iwi participation agreements, but we haven\u2019t actually gone into the specific details of the clause, which is under this part. Are we still able to discuss specific clauses relating to this part, on statutory officers and iwi participation agreements?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022578a7398abd86123ed2749c42af4f815\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: As long as we\u2019re moving forward, that\u2019s fine.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022436042dea39c4d59921ad568c27566ee\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Cool, OK. I\u2019ll leave it\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022779b444fa48fe2f5579f9df6967166c5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022779b444fa48fe2f5579f9df6967166c5\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (21:27)\u003C/span\u003E: Very briefly\u2014I\u2019ll come back to the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan in relation to JMAs. I think he\u2019s right, but I just want to double-check. Clause 186(4) is literally a provision to allow the Government to make regulations in relation to \u201Cmonitoring, reporting, and information gathering for the purposes of this section\u201D for territorial authorities. Essentially, it\u2019s a vires thing. When you do regulations, you have to be able to point to an empowering provision, and that\u2019s the one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002221a590003cac2a69fa81a6b5dd69f1d4\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d44b0d936cb5a40e998c64752d3bcc23\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Is this a continuation of that line of questioning?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227cbcdd0cb44602c7e3e3c1bfac8e1581\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, I now want to move on to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002243499fde8111aadf2cb57ee22b203a99\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: OK. Lawrence Xu-Nan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00229b7e4d4669bad65b5c382d592e1a320a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229b7e4d4669bad65b5c382d592e1a320a\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (21:27)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to now move on to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform\u2019s Amendment Paper on statutory officers. I want to look specifically at clause 188A(2). This is\u2014and I\u2019ve seen other instances\u2014\u201CThe chief executive must be satisfied that the person has the knowledge, skills, and experience \u2026\u201D. I want to check if this is the standard drafting for the Minister, because the only other instance where I\u2019ve seen such an independent officer is the Director of Regulation, which is one of the new individuals that\u2019s been added in the Education and Training Act. However, in the Education and Training Act, with the Director of Regulation, there was a specific list of what some of those knowledge, skills, and experience would entail. It could, potentially, even include things like having understanding of te ao M\u0101ori, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, or local government, etc., but it isn\u2019t listed here. Can I just check if the knowledge, skills, and experience listed here is something that is embedded, maybe under the document, under something within a particular ministry\u2014what would be some of the criteria for clause 188A(2)?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022705328b0d61bd88646406c560750bddf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022705328b0d61bd88646406c560750bddf\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (21:28)\u003C/span\u003E: The answer is this: yes, it\u2019s similar to other statutes\u2014widely used across other statutes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u00225e22cacb7da4dea5a06a81a24d372743\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225e22cacb7da4dea5a06a81a24d372743\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (21:29)\u003C/span\u003E: I have a few questions about clauses 198A through 198C. These agreements seem to no longer create participation rights; they just codify the existing rights in the Act. That\u2019s set out at clause 198C(1)(a), with the words \u201Ciwi authority participation provided for in this Act or the Natural Environment Act\u201D. I just want to clarify with the Minister that any other agreements that are entered into by councils with iwi\u2014that also codify other arrangements between them\u2014are something separate and they\u2019re not provided for in this, but they continue to exist.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also want to ask: at clause 198A(4) of Amendment Paper 709, this provision allows\u2014it\u2019s not just silent to the timing that\u2019s required; it\u2019s specific that it can be any amount of time. Is it his intention that it would be legal and that there would be no right of challenge if a local authority was to receive a representation from an iwi authority to enter into one of these arrangements and they didn\u2019t reply for 10 years? That seems to be what this means.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002669\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also want to ask him whether we\u2019re meant to read \u201Clocal authorities\u201D, in the context of Auckland, as meaning only the governing body or also the local boards. It is common for local boards in the Auckland context to enter into iwi participation arrangements at their local board level because they are the authority that appropriately has an arrangement with the local iwi. For example, when Cameron Brewer was the chair of his local board and I was general counsel for a local West Auckland iwi, I did make that representation to him and he did reply quicker than a decade, so that is good; there is precedent there for getting some of these things done quickly. We didn\u2019t get to resolve that, though, because it is difficult to resolve those arrangements, and they should rightly be negotiated between both parties.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn that instance, I also want to ask the Minister: he specifically used the word \u201Ciwi\u201D. That makes policy sense generally, but there are a few hap\u016B who have arrangements which are much more like iwi, in the context that we find ourselves in, like Ng\u0101ti Wh\u0101tua \u014Cr\u0101kei, which has several arrangements not only with the Crown directly but also over planning arrangements, say of \u014Cr\u0101kei board\u2019s area at Takaparawhau, at Bastion Point. That is a hap\u016B; it has settled more like an iwi. Do we just read \u201Ciwi\u201D there to mean hap\u016B? I think so. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnother question about new clause 198B(2); the notification to the Minister: why does the Minister need to know that a local authority is contemplating entering into an iwi participation agreement? There is an interest for the Crown, here, in ensuring that participation is working, but not necessarily in each arrangement between the iwi and local authorities, given that there may be far more of these than there are local authorities. Does that then relate to the clause 201 powers, where the Minister may make interventions and investigations along the way? Is that why it exists there?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002672\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAt new clause 198C, I just wanted to clarify what\u2019s in and what\u2019s out of scope, and then, for those sorts of arrangements which are out of scope\u2014which two bodies corporate can enter into, like covenants, like arrangements for services where representations are made by one body to the other in an advisory capacity\u2014what are those?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022e0295d59dc09ac544516e3d709c84103\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e0295d59dc09ac544516e3d709c84103\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (21:33)\u003C/span\u003E: OK, I\u2019ll take a few things there. In relation to Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s point around Joint Management Agreements (JMAs), I\u2019m advised that clauses 197 and 198 apply only to these clauses, not to other JMAs\u2014for example, in Treaty settlement clauses which are in the bills.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELet\u2019s take Arena Williams\u2019 various different points. I mean, yes, it is true that there will be other agreements that people may wish to enter into, as she said at length. In relation to the question about why there\u2019s new clause 198B, the short answer is because we\u2019re interested. One of the things that happened when there was an explosion in Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe was that trying to find out exactly what was going on was a nightmare, because the system is extremely decentralised. Part of what we\u2019re doing is creating more data and more information, so we just put a statutory hook in there in relation to that. And, yes, I do think the Crown needs to know what they say, so they can be monitored, although it\u2019s mainly an information-gathering exercise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to new clause 198A(4), these are voluntary agreements, so there\u2019s no obligation on local authorities to enter into them. They can be requested, but they\u2019re not mandatory; they don\u2019t have to be agreed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002277b8b02db5c033a873ea5c58fb0a0b3e\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, but these are procedural rules.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002677\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022af547e97a00ddc1b9ed5025a0aaa2e4e\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, sure, but the member asked the question around it; that\u2019s the answer. There is a suffix clause there around having regard to recommended response times prescribed in regulation, so it may be that there are recommendations made that you\u2019ve got to respond within three months or something. I don\u2019t know. I\u2019m not saying that\u2019s what it will be, but we may well get there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022 data-id=\u0022c3cc514582ec9416454df76dd6bad329\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c3cc514582ec9416454df76dd6bad329\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON (Green) (21:34)\u003C/span\u003E: T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Madam Chair. I wanted to ask some \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Ep\u0101ti t\u0101piri\u003C/span\u003E to my colleague from Labour, Arena Williams, in relation to the iwi participation agreements and picking up on the uniqueness of Tai Tokerau; Tai Tokerau being unique, particularly in the Ng\u0101 hap\u016B o Ng\u0101puhi space.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002679\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat is the definition of \u201Ciwi\u201D for this legislation, because, in the North, we have large natural groupings with Crown mandate now entering into negotiations with the Crown? Therefore, would these hap\u016B groupings\u2014for example, Te Whakaaetanga tribal grouping in the Bay of Islands\u2014then be deemed iwi enough to be able to enter into iwi participation agreements? Is this a Crown definition of what \u201Ciwi\u201D is in 2026, or can we figure out ourselves as iwi M\u0101ori? What are the definitions of what Crown iwi is for the purposes of the bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002680\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFurther, when we hear from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform that they just want to know for information-gathering purposes around who\u2019s developing these iwi participation agreements\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cc0007c52514a199e97323a170d06521\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019re a little bit out of scope of this part, here, because we actually discussed some of this in the \u201CInterpretation\u201D clause this morning, when I was here with Mr Court earlier today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002682\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222755dcadf974066de7a9da5806b4cc2c\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m picking up particularly from a Ng\u0101 hap\u016B o Ng\u0101puhi perspective, which hasn\u2019t been traversed in the committee yet. Nobody\u2019s talked about the large natural grouping policy of Te Arawhiti or Te Tari Whakatau now and the way whereby the Crown is now mandating different types of groups, now, which are similar to our \u014Cr\u0101kei example. That\u2019s a uniqueness that we haven\u2019t traversed yet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002683\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EFurther, I just wanted to ask: we\u2019re going to information gather and we\u2019re going to monitor in terms of what the agreements look like\u2014ka pai\u2014but what happens if the Minister doesn\u2019t like the contents of an agreement, an iwi participation agreement? Is there a veto provision for the Minister\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002684\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022710632c3c542aca2ea0968c6c5adb446\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002685\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002256bed3f4047eebcb18946ec3037df123\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014on what a local authority might be doing?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002686\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e08cd872d9ea6ac838a0a31098065f35\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The answer to that is no; he\u2019s just answered it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002687\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de25040d91b0a9be3ca22e40a8b3314e\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON\u003C/span\u003E: OK, he\u2019s just looking at it, ka pai. Then, new clause 198D, \u201CTermination or renegotiation of iwi participation agreements\u201D. This one could be the juicy part of it, eh, where there could be the iwi authority, including hap\u016B, who may withdraw from an iwi participation agreement. In the breakage or a degrading of a relationship between iwi M\u0101ori and local authorities, or with the Crown\u2014you know, there\u2019s breaches happening right now\u2014what happens if we have a degrading of the relationship and the iwi pulls out? How do we build that trust again to seek to renegotiate what the involvement of iwi is in that space? Just because they pull out of an iwi participation agreement does not mean that they forfeit their rights to have a voice and to be able to participate in the planning system. Kia ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u002292d72eeac3d82954fa672064cae7bc55\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002688\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002292d72eeac3d82954fa672064cae7bc55\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (21:38)\u003C/span\u003E: That, of course, is right: the iwi participation agreements are voluntary and they are mechanism for giving effect to the other things in the bills\u2014so that, of course, is right. You don\u2019t have to be part of an iwi participation agreement to exercise various different things in the bills, although, if you wish to enter into one with a local authority, you can. Some people will; the last few months demonstrate there is huge enthusiasm from some people for that, and I look forward to seeing those in due course. If people want to pull out, they can; that\u2019s the point. Now we\u2019ve made it voluntary, and if people want to do it, they will, and if they don\u2019t, they won\u2019t. It\u2019s as simple as that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002689\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019m advised that the definition of \u201Ciwi authority\u201D is actually in clause 3, which we dealt with yesterday afternoon, which means \u201Cthe authority that represents an iwi\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002690\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002254e7d10842475d13d1cd74aa71367026\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: We weren\u2019t here in the afternoon.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002691\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db8c1ccf2622c12bf25569dde00b65c3\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and that is recognised by that iwi as having authority to do so\u201D\u2014what\u2019s that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002692\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cf67cf9abc129e50483c9567f26f8ea4\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: We weren\u2019t here in the afternoon; we were here in the early evening.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002693\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002287852da91914985fa727fa1f1a6f9225\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: OK, early evening.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002694\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b160e000b94589becaef1f0700b86b9\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: We did have an early evening.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002695\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022663bd5a89a0aa4e3a8a18f7754029cad\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, it\u2019s been a long 24 hours. I\u2019m also advised that groups of hap\u016B can be iwi authorities for the purposes of these bills.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002696\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ETo the \u201Clarge natural grouping\u201D policy that the member mentions, I\u2019m advised it\u2019s irrelevant for the iwi authority definition here. So that deals with that, and that deals with the questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002697\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cafb097d9ce42343ff1d167e6c4db3c8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Now, given the answer that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform has just given, and since I\u2019ve been back in the Chamber and I\u2019ve been watching back in my office, we are getting repetitive of earlier parts. I see we\u2019ve got up to the 190s\u2014the high 190s\u2014in terms of clauses. We still have a Subpart\u00A02 in this piece, and there\u2019s still some schedules, but I don\u2019t want to go back over old ground, so I\u2019m going to look for some new questions. I want specific clauses to be mentioned as the questions are asked, and I don\u2019t want speeches. Hon Rachel Brooking, I\u2019m going to take you first, as you are on your feet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022e4d2e7728280678a897d7fa35889eedf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002698\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e4d2e7728280678a897d7fa35889eedf\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (21:40)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for thinking of my knees. I\u2019m going to pop over to Schedule 9, and I know this isn\u2019t in the order, but last time I missed the schedules, and I do have some short questions on Schedule 9. That\u2019s not to say that other people won\u2019t go back to the 200s.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002699\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e4babdb0bc64c2e1f7e436b4b88f255\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I like your methodical order, so I would say just ask your questions on Schedule 9, and we\u2019ll just list them, and then the Minister can\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002700\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002210034a17ce9cea10587c0a6048f903b4\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Schedule 9, yes. I\u2019ve just got three main questions, I think, on Schedule 9. The first one is just a general one that I\u2019ve been asking about a number of these schedules, and that is: is this largely replicating what\u2019s in the Resource Management Act (RMA)? I think it is, but it would be great if the Minister could confirm that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002701\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen I\u2019m interested in the number of appointments of the members of the Environment Court. This is at Part 2, clause 9(1), which is on page 460 of the Amendment Paper. It says, \u201CAt any one time,\u2014(a) no more than 10 Environment Judges may hold office; and (b) any number of alternate Environment Judges may hold office.\u201D I\u2019m just wondering if the Minister has given consideration if, with the new system, it will mean more churn in the Environment Court and if, in fact, there will need to be more Environment Court judges. He might have some answer in relation to the new Planning Tribunal and whether that will take off some of the load, but these questions will probably be about plans. What consideration has gone into that? That\u2019s my second question. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002702\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen I will just go over some pages to Part 3, which is on the powers of the Environment Court. I\u2019m just interested in clause 45, which is on page 472. There\u2019s an addition that \u201C(5) This clause applies to the hearing of appeals on the merits, but does not apply to the hearing of appeals on a question of law.\u201D If the Minister can just explain that insertion, that would be great. There\u2019s a similar one over the page at clause 48, when the Environment Court may order change to proposed plans\u2014\u201CThe power to order changes to a proposed plan does not apply if the court heard the appeal on a question of law.\u201D Just if the Minister can explain what\u2019s going on there with appeals on the points of law, that would be great. That\u2019s his changes, number of judges, and generally if it\u2019s fair to say that it\u2019s fairly similar to the RMA.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022e4a4635e177b5b9f0abd1096f99c570c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002703\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e4a4635e177b5b9f0abd1096f99c570c\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (21:43)\u003C/span\u003E: Question one: yes, in relation to similarity to the Resource Management Act (RMA). Question two: in relation to the number of Environment Court judges, the short answer is we would love there to be fewer cases. We don\u2019t know exactly because it\u2019s impossible to predict. Obviously, the Planning Tribunal, as member says, will make a difference there, we hope. Stuff that would ordinarily go up through the Environment Court pathway takes a long time and is very expensive for everybody and it will be\u2014there\u2019ll be less of that and more in the tribunal. As the member probably remembers from her time as a Minister, if we appoint more than 10 Environment Court judges, we\u2019ve got to make a Budget bid, so the Minister of Finance has been relatively generous with me when it comes to resource management reform so far, but let\u2019s not push our luck. We can come back to that. We can have a look at that in the future, depending on fiscal requirements at the time and the workload through the system. I will just say here and now that I\u2019m surprised the member has not asked about it. We did contemplate a name change to the Environment Court. We were thinking about the Planning and Environment Court, which was going to be called PEC.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002704\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bc6b2146cc2c256e8765eeb7ef88671a\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Excellent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002705\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e87cfc7718e665d90198172c21ee9fb0\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, I know. It would be fair to say it did not meet with the approval of the court. What I wanted was a Planning and Environment Court and a Planning and Environment Tribunal, which is going to be PET. Anyway, we\u2019ve decided\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002706\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022100368b6ffe9af42c1ea5940a3c81cc6\u0022\u003EHon Damien O\u0027Connor\u003C/span\u003E: Perfect for you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002707\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224ed9ead3915a92b1217fdae32761b3bd\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: What was that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002205627d547fee8699505401c5932b4434\u0022\u003EHon Damien O\u0027Connor\u003C/span\u003E: Perfect for you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002709\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b300e20e6f3117ba18fc1635339b3441\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, that\u2019s right. I am the manager of the pet bonds through another tribunal, the tenancy tribunal. But we decided not to do it, so we\u2019ve kept with the Environment Court name. It lives on, as we call it, in the Planning Tribunal and Environment Court. Anyway, I digress. I don\u2019t know if the member was going to ask that, but I\u2019ve answered it in case she was going to. Clause 45(5), I\u2019m advised, reflects the split between merits and points of law on plan appeals in bills. Under the RMA, all the appeals are merits.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227607a3219dd103837676248afa251945\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Lan Pham\u2014no, I\u2019m sorry, I\u2019ve indicated that we\u2019ve got some schedules to go through. I\u2019m sure the public, for a lot of reasons\u2014it\u2019s the first time some of this has been clarified. The questions are sensible, and as long as we get no repetition\u2014Lan Pham.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u0022844cb00becb442a74c22afcd138bdb8e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002711\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022844cb00becb442a74c22afcd138bdb8e\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (21:45)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m moving to Subpart\u00A03, \u201CSystem performance\u201D. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002712\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225132b6437da2e541f2e3a9062cfeec57\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I can\u2019t hear the member. Please start again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002713\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222363e8ab4f1f422d6cf7393c07f47e30\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM\u003C/span\u003E: Thanks, Madam Chair. I\u2019m moving to Subpart 3, \u201CSystem performance\u201D, of Part 5, and I\u2019m particularly interested in this beginning with clause 209B, because this is about the \u201CChief executive\u2019s system performance function\u201D. This is absolutely critical because it\u2019s a new clause that is all about how we actually assess the success or otherwise of the entirety of these reforms. What I\u2019m really interested in is the chief executive\u2019s roles under this clause, which is about monitoring and reporting. Now, it talks about two\u2014well, really three\u2014parts of (a), the \u201Cmonitoring and reporting\u201D, first, about \u201Cthe efficiency and effectiveness of [the] system\u201D and then, \u201C(ii) the extent to which the goals of the Acts are achieved;\u201D and then, finally, \u201C(b) identifying and responding to system-wide issues.\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002714\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, why I would like the Minister to please comment on this is that we know that this new mega-ministry Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT) is the CE that is tasked with this assessment, and I\u2019m interested as to what measures are contemplated here. It\u2019s a genuine question because if you were coming from the perspective of, say, the previous Ministry for the Environment, it would be relatively clear cut\u2014taken, of course, with the general challenges with assessing environmental outcomes and performance. It would be relatively clear cut as to what an efficient and effective system would be. When you have this entire system now at MCERT, where there are multiple functions of the CE, how is that individual and that performance function really able to be assessed?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002715\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019d really like to hear the Minister\u2019s comments on that, because it brings me to an Amendment Paper that I have. Again, I\u2019ll just move directly on to clause 212, because this is the chief executive producing a system performance report every three years. What was really disappointing in the changes that were made at select committee is that in the original bill, which was introduced to Parliament here, they were really clear directives in this clause 212, which have been deleted. These were around councils actually assessing how they manage environmental limits, specifically in an efficient and effective way and around whether additional Government intervention is recommended. It also talked about whether there were interventions that regional councils themselves could actually implement to manage those environmental limits. Now, those provisions in clause\u00A0212 have been taken out. Why were they taken out, and why is it such that it cannot specify in these bills that that is the exact kind of thing that we would want the chief executive to be reporting on? Would the Minister consider, at this very late stage, returning these clauses, which is what I\u2019m proposing in my Amendment Paper? It\u2019s very cut and dry stuff. It actually just gives us really clear information about what might be happening specifically in the environmental space compared to MCERT having to juggle all of those roles, which we know the CE must do. I\u2019m really interested in the Minister\u2019s response to that. Thank you, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022572cd8d19d13afd465f940558a0e507b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002716\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022572cd8d19d13afd465f940558a0e507b\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (21:50)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll come back on the second one; I\u2019ll just take some quick advice. But I think I can deal with it by saying the member Lan Pham\u2019s point around limits is well made, and data to inform the limits clearly is going to be an important part of the ministry, alongside regional councils, in relation to their respective functions under the bill or Act. So I don\u2019t think a lot turns on that. I didn\u2019t really understand her point, to be honest. Chief executives (CEs) of Government departments have multiple different functions. That\u2019s part of what being a CE is. Clearly, the CE himself, or herself, is not going to be the one doing it. This is part of legislation: the CE is given the responsibility to do it, but in reality, it\u2019s actually the agency; it\u2019s just that the law says the CE has to do it, but there\u2019s delegation authorities in relation to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002717\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClauses 209B through 212 are really important. I think the member herself\u2014I think\u2014would probably accept the absence of clear data and accountability frameworks in the current Resource Management Act (RMA) is a big part of the problem as to why the RMA failed. Now, in the age of modern data and digital systems and federated data infrastructure, and even before you think start thinking about artificial intelligence, the ability for central government to have much richer data and monitor how the system performs is critically important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002718\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust as an aside, the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport is not a mega-ministry, it is way smaller than most other Government agencies. It is a small-ish shop of people that brings together all of the things that the member claims to be concerned about, which is integrated management of transport, environment, local government, infrastructure, natural hazards, climate change\u2014all in the same place. So it\u2019s a bit weird that she says, you know, that the Government\u2019s approach to the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill is a disaster because it\u2019s disaggregated all of these different things into separate bills that all have to be integrated, but then she wants to have a ministry of transport, environment, local government, and infrastructure all by itself, as if that was ever a particularly sensible idea. Her whole party\u2019s point\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002719\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ac024e002c21c48624949035284e84b\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002720\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ad8a764c3afe59d01405c8eddd8bec7a\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014is that you can\u2019t disentangle the environment and everything else.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022628994b43bfefd5da96496133e3d738b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve got a point\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002722\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f02395663fe607e8536a927cb3f58576\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: I agree with her.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222e51189b37d9031d1ad23e5eeb5ec96f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002724\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002266fdb7c9ef6ea2a70087e2b5ee14b119\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s why we created a ministry to give effect to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002725\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022defcd86e944172a628565317c8b7c46e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Minister! I have a point of order from Lan Pham.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002726\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022488640589b3e4c5bcb86141e5c7969c7\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m really not appreciating the Minister putting words in my mouth. That\u2019s not what I think, and he\u2019s speaking as if that\u2019s what I\u2019m saying. That\u2019s not what I\u2019m saying at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002727\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f558a9577229cccd807aa83824f8f351\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: OK, all right. I apologise. I thought I\u2019d heard the member make those different points before, but if it\u2019s not her view, I withdraw and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002728\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eeda96e599998ca9c2d8b384816add9a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I would also ask that\u2014I thought we were moving into a different piece of legislation at that point, so can we\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EMinister resumes seat\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022 data-id=\u00220b6adfdbace31207f0545d4338d94a8c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002729\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220b6adfdbace31207f0545d4338d94a8c\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B) (21:53)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, I\u2019m conscious that you said a little while ago you don\u2019t want to go backwards to previous sections, but I have just tabled an amendment\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002730\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a47fe285b69e770f1eb7a9058cb8f3fd\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I saw that, and I\u2019m not up to speed. Has the Minister also\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002731\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022678d1499b153f92b9f8f37a36ae7f343\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s a direct response to the comment made earlier by the Minister responsible for RMA Reform. It proposes a new, after new clause 188B, inserted by the Minister\u2019s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709\u2014it\u2019s a mechanism for the approval by both the Minister and the statutory officer of the urban land markets compliance framework. It requires the proposed framework to be provided by the Minister to the statutory officer, to the statutory officer being able to provide advice back; the Minister then being required to not approve it unless the statutory officer advises that it\u2019s sufficient, or if the Minister wants to override the advice, the Minister can, but they have to publish the advice. So I put that on the Table for the Minister to consider.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002732\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002283c8b6cb22342a728079dd821469a87e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: OK. I\u2019ll let the Minister absorb that one for a moment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022074d4b41208265eff24fba5a36607e9d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002733\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022074d4b41208265eff24fba5a36607e9d\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (21:54)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to move on to a further section. I want to move on to Schedule 10, which is under clause 216 on the Planning Tribunal. I\u2019m going off Amendment Paper 709 and I\u2019m starting with clause 3 of Schedule 10, page 497. One of the first things that that has changed in this amendment is it changes the term \u201Cchairperson\u201D to \u201CPrincipal Adjudicator\u201D and \u201CDeputy Principal Adjudicator\u201D. I want to check with the Minister responsible for RMA Reform on those adjustments in this particular schedule.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002734\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also want to check with the Minister in terms of\u2014I\u2019m looking at the requirements, so I\u2019m looking at clause 4(3). Now, this is interesting because we just had, a little while ago, the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Act where, as part of the update, the tribunal rules have changed to not simply allow the chief adjudicator for the tribunal in those instances to be\u2014the person to be a barrister or solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand for at least seven years, because that has locked one particular person in as the principal adjudicator and they could not find a replacement for her. So in that particular bill, they changed it to anyone on the tribunal must have standing as a barrister or solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand for at least seven years. I want to check with the Minister whether, in this case, this would then align with some of the other changes we have just recently seen in our tribunals or in the legislation for tribunals. And if not, is there a sufficient enough pool of people that whoever is the Principal Adjudicator and Deputy Principal Adjudicator would\u2014even though we\u2019re looking at, I think, a future subclause talking about a five-year term\u2014be able to step down because there is a sufficiently big enough pool of people to fill those spaces? I want to check with the Minister if that has been considered: rather than the Principal Adjudicator and the Deputy Principal Adjudicator being the person with that experience, to have anyone on the tribunal with that particular experience\u2014if that has been considered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002735\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the other questions I have is the insertion now\u2014because we\u2019ve got two additional roles in this amendment: we\u2019ve got the Principal Adjudicator and Deputy Principal Adjudicator. But in clause 5(6)\u2014this is on page 499\u2014the \u201CDeputy Principal Adjudicator has all of the functions, \u2026 of the Principal Adjudicator, subject to any directions\u201D. Is there a situation\u2014are we looking at, potentially, the Deputy Principal Adjudicator and Principal Adjudicator would not be presiding over the same dispute? Is that what we\u2019re looking at here, or are they all going to be overseeing the same dispute process as part of the tribunal? That\u2019s my second question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002736\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy third question\u2014I have four for this particular part\u2014is on clause 7A, \u201COath of Office\u201D, on page 501. This looks like a new insertion, but I just want to check with the Minister that this insertion is simply something that has been left out and is being added back in.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002737\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis might be quite a niche question\u2014again, this came up previously when we were looking at other adjudicators for other tribunals; in this case, the Disputes Tribunal that I\u2019m referring to specifically. Clause 9, \u201CRemuneration\u201D\u2014one of the tidy-ups when we were looking at the Disputes Tribunal a little while ago was the fact that the rate is determined by Remuneration Authority, but they are no longer considered an employee, but are considered self-employed in the context of being an adjudicator for the Disputes Tribunal, from memory. Part of that would also affect, for example\u2014you know, it would have tangible material implications because it changes the amount of ACC, for example, that adjudicators will pay for Disputes Tribunal. I want to check, for clause 9, \u201CRemuneration\u201D, whether the Principal Adjudicator\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002738\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002267af837ec35b55e71fde395d5ae5647b\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002739\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022170396bd9be88a0aedcc5080fd54fb39\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, sorry, Madam Chair\u2014just, I\u2019ll finish this\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002740\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002211ed3a5b32a73ba6958fdb68484ee9c7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: No, your time\u2019s up, so I\u2019m calling the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022bf1b35fb7fed269ca9c7ecfde5219af3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002741\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bf1b35fb7fed269ca9c7ecfde5219af3\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (21:59)\u003C/span\u003E: You\u2019re literally reading out things, saying, \u201CHow\u2019s remuneration dealt with?\u201D Parliament sets up tribunals all the time. There\u2019s a Tenancy Tribunal; there\u2019s heaps of them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002742\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221f804eb9147c64067e548f9d5fc5b12c\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: But are they employees or are they self-employed?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002743\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225e76898dd097f94e8b3c8e1625f3b1be\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: It doesn\u2019t actually matter, Lawrence. There\u2019s a standard form process for dealing with this stuff, which is clause 9 of Schedule 10: \u201C(1) The Principal Adjudicator and each adjudicator\u2014(a) must be paid a salary, fee, or allowance at the rate determined by the Remuneration Authority; and (b) must be paid\u201D expenses, expenses, etc., etc.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002744\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBasically, all of your questions can be dealt with by the fact that we set up tribunals all the time and it\u2019s largely standard-form stuff. The Principal Adjudicator role aligns with practice in other tribunals\u2014for example, the Principal Disputes Referee and the Disputes Tribunal also reflects the fact they have an adjudicator role.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002745\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EProposed new clause 7A of Schedule 10 is the same point, which is the oath of office, which is added to be consistent with other tribunals, because anybody else who is in another tribunal\u2014like the Disputes Tribunal for example; the Tenancy Tribunal\u2014has to take an oath of office. It was probably left out from the original draft, and it\u2019s one of these things that gets tidied up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002746\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere will be a principal and deputy principal adjudicator. It\u2019s the standard form. The Governor-General will do it on the recommendation of the Attorney-General\u2014who, at the moment, happens to be me. They have to recommend it, and then the Attorney-General must consult the Minister or Ministers responsible for the administration of the Act and the Natural Environment Act. There are some requirements around who they need to be. They have to have been standing as a barrister and solicitor for at least seven years, and then have the knowledge and experience\u2014again, this is all just standard-form establishment stuff for a tribunal. It\u2019s not that complicated. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002747\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222eae411247737ab9ba36504707cb82d8\u0022\u003EHon Members: \u003C/span\u003EMadam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002748\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002294de5a52f1d8ac5f400d790a2cc909f3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Rachel Brooking has indicated to me that she has just the last little tidy-up questions on this section.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022d0a9c5b832b80c4e81cfe88c173d9c6d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002749\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d0a9c5b832b80c4e81cfe88c173d9c6d\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (22:01)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, on Schedule 10\u2014thank you\u2014which I haven\u2019t commented on before. Now, I promise not to ask the Minister responsible for RMA Reform about the establishment of tribunals in the new legislation, but I do have a couple of questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002750\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn Schedule 10, at clause 7, \u201CAppointment of adjudicators\u201D, there\u2019s been a change at subclause (3) that somebody who is an Environment Commissioner or a Deputy Environment Commissioner for the Environment Court now may act as an adjudicator. I see this as an improvement, because it could be strange if they must be treated as an adjudicator if they were\u2014in fact, that could mean that they could act on the same case when it was an appeal from the Planning Tribunal that went to the Environment Court. So if the Minister can confirm, when it comes time, that that\u2019s the reason for the change as I\u2019ve given it, that would be useful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002751\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen a little question on clause 12: there\u2019s a new subclause (3) which is \u201CWitnesses and counsel appearing before the tribunal to have the same privileges and immunities as they would if the hearings were proceedings in the District Court.\u201D I presume that this is similar to other tribunals, but I was just wondering if the Minister can confirm that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002752\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, going on to clause 14, \u201CReview of decisions of local authorities\u201D, I think I asked a question about a change that\u2019s been made relating to the Planning Tribunal being able to have jurisdiction over a private plan change. I did ask about this in an earlier part of the bill, and I don\u2019t think I got an answer. Clause 14 sets out some of the jurisdiction of the Planning Tribunal, and most of it is fairly discrete things that make sense, that it would go to a planning tribunal rather than needing to go to the full Environment Court, but they don\u2019t relate to plan changes. However, there\u2019s this insertion at paragraph (ba) that, now, it can be an application for a private plan change. Is it just an application\u2014so is it quite a narrow jurisdiction here, and is that the change?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002753\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen\u2014oh yes, I\u2019ve got a couple more comments. One is at paragraph (ka)\u2014so, still on clause 14\u2014and that\u2019s relating to regulatory relief. So regulatory relief would be that if there are disputes, they can come to the tribunal, and, as the Minister knows, we think that this is going to be a very inefficient process. So does he think that those cases\u2014this is going back into the other part of the bill in terms of systems performance and monitoring. Will they be monitored, how many cases relate to regulatory relief, and how much that costs everybody.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002754\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMoving on to clause 26A, which is about the online publication of final decisions, this is new, and I just want to commend the Minister for including it. It drives me crazy when I can\u2019t find tribunal decisions because they\u2019re not online. But at subclause (4), there is a good reason not to publish a decision, and that is if they are of \u201Climited public value:\u201D. Does the Minister have any comment on what \u201Climited public value:\u201D would be? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002755\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI understand the other criteria in terms of the interests of justice, name suppression, or various suppression orders or statutory requirements, but what would that be? I\u2019m hoping that the Minister agrees with me that it\u2019s very good for access to justice if, in fact, these decisions that are made by various institutions and tribunals are easily accessible. Those are my questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022c36caeb65055a4fbcc3689f98e1f0cff\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002756\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c36caeb65055a4fbcc3689f98e1f0cff\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (22:05)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll try and deal with all those; some of them were good questions. In relation to clause 7 of Schedule 10 about the \u201Cmay act\u201D, which the the Hon Rachel Brooking seemed to meet with approval there, I\u2019m advised it\u2019s a more appropriate description for a judicial officer. \u201CA person who holds office as an Environment Commissioner or \u2026 Deputy Environment Commissioner\u201D\u2014with which I have some familiarity\u2014\u201Cmay act as an adjudicator appointed under this clause.\u201D, and so that\u2019s the more appropriate description.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002757\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to clause 14(ba), I think the member asked in relation to private plan changes, and the member answered her own question there. There\u2019s an addition, but a relatively simple one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002758\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to regulatory relief, yes, I expect that to be monitored as part of the system performance monitoring functions, and I\u2019m sure it will be. You will be as interested in that as I am.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002759\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to clause 26A, there was a very good question in relation to what are decisions of limited public value. Without second-guessing exactly how this will be interpreted, I would\u2019ve thought that neighbour X and neighbour Y having a dispute, some random dispute over a finial on a roof or a house, or a complaint about some council busybody getting in the way of people trying to do thing \u2014I mean, is it of limited public value? Well, it\u2019s certainly amusing to see what the local council busybodies get up to. Is it of public value? Probably not\u2014I don\u2019t know.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002760\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c82d79553e07e0954316d30c13fdb6ed\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: If you\u2019re the member of Parliament for the area and you want to know what\u2019s going on, it\u2019s very helpful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002761\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222ac6c5c16521e6e35bd3ab99f43b3c7b\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, that\u2019s a good point. I don\u2019t know\u2014I don\u2019t know. Well, I mean, we\u2019ll just have to wait and see\u2014we\u2019ll just have to wait and see. I could tell you so many stories about complaints I\u2019ve had from people up and down the country, but in the interests of time, I will not. I\u2019ll not bore members with stories about finials, and the internal layout of living rooms is a classic\u2014council officers who get very upset about the way in which people point their couches at doors. It\u2019s of great public interest that we design well-functioning living rooms and TVs that face the right way!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002762\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022497c6180655edf3cdd3d835b04d0046a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I think that\u2019s a sufficient answer to that question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002763\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002217d0480e6fc5d6ae1e9bcb03f33cbf2f\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: OK, I\u2019m going to deal with Phil Twyford\u2019s point, and all that stuff\u2019s out of scope now, by the way. It\u2019s fantastic to get rid of all this stuff. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E] What\u2019s that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002764\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221aefb4a7c18904e8082daf81f5976294\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Feng shui is important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002765\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ff8544a486acc54055c304811529f3a5\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: I can\u2019t hear you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002766\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002299404d2a3b4da44a9eb392a85a0bcca0\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: He says that feng shui is important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002767\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002214c9ac08a25d86bbf168adab8d762326\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Feng shui is not in scope of the Planning Bill. Lawrence, you can arrange your living room, and, in fact, your kitchen, how you like. The New Zealand central government has no interest in the way in which you design your living room, my friend. You\u2019re one of many people who told \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThe Spinoff\u003C/span\u003E that you would have me over for a beer, and so maybe I could enjoy it one day. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002768\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAnyway\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E] Many people\u2014I think I was No. 2. Who was the most popular? Grant McCallum was the most popular, I think.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002769\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002227b597d68f9113500f23bdaa3cac8a9a\u0022\u003ETom Rutherford\u003C/span\u003E: No, he wasn\u2019t.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002770\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ba696a12a03067f0cfbaeaaf205b9aa5\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: It was you\u2014it was you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002771\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c30b6ca0a626bb9729394d3f9f64a5df\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: OK, I think we\u2019d better stop; otherwise, we\u2019re going to have a massive scope here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002772\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022adf78e2dac40b82cfc0edfd66c20a04a\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: My apologies\u2014my apologies. I\u2019ve considered Mr Twyford\u2019s amendment seriously. I\u2019m keen to take this offline with him, but the challenge is that the framework for competitive land markets is not in the national policy direction and it\u2019s not the intention to have it in the national policy direction; it\u2019s in the standards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002773\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe second problem is the Minister doesn\u2019t make the framework. We\u2019ve deliberately left the framework for competitiveness assessment frameworks to the land market officer, and so we\u2019re actually trying to get the Minister out of making these approvals. The statutory officer makes the framework in their independent capacity, and so\u2014yeah, I mean, is it perfect? Probably not. Could it be better? Yes, but that\u2019s probably true of every piece of legislation we pass through the Parliament. I\u2019m keen to take it offline and get the balance right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022 data-id=\u00224c82587752e8c98ad4db5606582271cc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002774\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224c82587752e8c98ad4db5606582271cc\u0022\u003ETOM RUTHERFORD (National\u2014Bay of Plenty) (22:09)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002775\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002776\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002777\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002778\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002779\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002780\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002781\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227bc72abcfc800b99dee124320bdedd3e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Phil Twyford\u2019s tabled amendments to the Minister\u2019s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 709 replacing new clause 188B(2)(a) and (b) and inserting new clause 188C be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002782\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments to the amendments to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002783\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002784\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002785\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002786\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002787\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments to the amendments to the amendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002788\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224016f360715809e0d08463770773d1c2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Arena Williams\u2019 tabled amendment to the Minister\u2019s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 709 inserting new clause 188C be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002789\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment to the amendments to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002790\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002791\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002792\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002793\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002794\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendments to the amendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002795\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cb83515af3b7e207e836e3eacfc6431b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Phil Twyford\u2019s tabled amendment to the Minister\u2019s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 709 inserting new clause 188C be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment to the amendments to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002797\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002798\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002799\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002800\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002801\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment to the amendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002802\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221309eb2f2b067aebc1bc0cd0405b374e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 709 inserting clauses 188A and 188B be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002803\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAmendments to the amendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002804\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022066e7c6665d8a118c121d542c5a5bd22\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendments to clauses 182 and 183A in Amendment Paper 709, set out on Amendment Paper 751, are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002805\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 5 set out on Amendment Paper\u00A0709 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002806\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002807\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002808\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002809\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002810\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002811\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002812\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222ef9fb703c33b2ca2ab5bc74532665b1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Steve Abel\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 203(1) inserting new paragraph (c) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002813\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002815\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002816\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002817\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002818\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002819\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bb0f2ddc880a9bac9cf76603db937cc6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s amendment to clause 210 set out on Amendment Paper 733 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002820\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002821\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002822\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002823\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002824\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002825\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002826\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002269afea443ac1198960e55a666617298f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Lan Pham\u2019s amendments to clause 212 set out on Amendment Paper 728 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002827\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002828\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002829\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002830\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002832\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002833\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Part 5 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002834\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002835\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002836\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002837\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002838\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 5 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002839\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00223639d91fee78e2e694587b16612109e2\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002840\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d8454f7fbab27c3062d9777eacd442c7\u0022\u003EPart 6 Enforcement and other matters, proposed new clause 295, and Schedules\u00A08\u00A0and\u00A011\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002841\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002297730c33340c6997bf276d18de8d8c16\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to Part 6. This is the debate on clauses 217 to 294\u2014\u201CEnforcement and other matters\u201D\u2014including proposed new clause 295; Schedule 8, \u201CEnforcement matters\u201D; and Schedule 1 \u201CAmendments to other legislation\u201D. The question is that Part 6 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00226a971816ca0bdae04d5e564d340f20ab\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002842\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226a971816ca0bdae04d5e564d340f20ab\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (22:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. I think you just said that it includes Schedule 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002843\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d5a4ca055458d743f7da3c27cc78d387\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: No, Schedule 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002844\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226b58683d3e0b517301fd22f2c834e655\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: And then Schedule 11?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002845\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e44f2234a851b43daa49aa78f0b162bb\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Schedule 11, \u201CAmendments to other legislation\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002846\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224459ac8ec4b09874e9f29b2ae330dee5\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. That was just for clarification that it\u2019s Schedule 11.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002847\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222e9cad57710ab9e746ed6308fe6bdb49\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: OK. Thank you. The question is that Part 6 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u002273263e2b66e66551a4e0dfeea5adf09a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002848\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002273263e2b66e66551a4e0dfeea5adf09a\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (22:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019ll just start with a general first question about Part 6 itself rather than Schedule\u00A011, and that is that there are many changes in this Amendment Paper regarding, in particular, the role of the Environmental Protection Authority. I was wondering if the member in the chair, Simon Court, could start us off with an explanation of those changes at the front of Part 6 in this Amendment Paper, please.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00224df79bbba4b388357d846d1f57a6cdec\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002849\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224df79bbba4b388357d846d1f57a6cdec\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (22:20)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I will also start by asking some of the same questions\u2014no, actually, I\u2019m going to focus on clause 232(1)(g)(ii), and, again, I\u2019m focusing on the changes that we see on Amendment Paper 709. So in here we\u2019re seeing that a pecuniary penalty has been added as a package alongside an enforcement order and conviction. I want to check, as a starting point, why a pecuniary penalty has been added in that instance, as opposed to other things like an infringement order, etc. We\u2019ve discussed some of that previously in terms of a package, but I want to check why it is a pecuniary penalty and not infringement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002850\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMoving on, again, I\u2019m looking specifically at changes on the Amendment Paper. In clause 234 \u201CApplication for enforcement order\u201D, at subclause (2), we\u2019re also seeing additional changes to the local authority. This is regarding clause 234(2)(c) specifically, which says, \u201Ca local authority or the EPA for an enforcement order of a kind\u201D. I want to check with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary why that particular clause has been included as well, and I\u2019ll leave it at those two questions for now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022f676086c67f3fb293469bb960d337dd6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002851\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f676086c67f3fb293469bb960d337dd6\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:21)\u003C/span\u003E: In answer to the member the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s question, most of the changes that the member has observed on the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper 709 are technical. They\u2019re moving parts around so that they\u2019re in the right order for implementation, and so I hope that helps.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002852\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWith respect to Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s question around clause 232(1)(g)(ii), there\u2019s a lot of information here, so bear with me, please. Clause 232, \u201CScope of enforcement order\u201D, sets out the scope of what an enforcement order may require or permit. In terms of subclause (1), the pecuniary penalty has been inserted to the reflect policy intent that revocation or suspension is restricted to situations that have had judicial oversight. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002853\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of clause 234, which sets out who may apply for various types of enforcement orders, again, in subclause (2)(aa), it\u2019s been moved to keep like clauses together, and so that\u2019s a drafting improvement from the people responsible for the drafting. In subclause (3), there\u2019s a reference to the Minister of Conservation and regional coastal plans having been deleted to reflect the fact that the Minister of Conservation has a reduced role in this scope and regional coastal plans are no longer present in the new system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022 data-id=\u002213f0c1f3eb742b5d3c9bdbcb04574083\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002854\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002213f0c1f3eb742b5d3c9bdbcb04574083\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON (Green) (22:23)\u003C/span\u003E: T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Madam Chair. I want to ask a p\u0101tai on Part 6, clause 272, which can be found on page 210. It refers to the fact that \u201CA local authority must prepare and publish a compliance and enforcement strategy, in the prescribed manner and setting out the prescribed criteria, that takes into account \u2026 Treaty settlements, and voluntary or statutory agreements with local iwi, hap\u016B, or M\u0101ori.\u201D, and it\u2019s deleted \u201CMana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe agreements\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002855\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn the original bill, there was the wording in clause 272(2): \u201CWhen developing a compliance and enforcement strategy, local authorities must work with iwi authorities and groups that represent hap\u016B within the region.\u201D It\u2019s interesting the way that that part was deleted from the original bill, and now we just have this prescribed way of dealing with this, or taking it into account, but how is it intended that a local authority is to prepare and publish these enforcement and compliance strategies without talking to the local iwi, hap\u016B, or M\u0101ori? I\u2019m wondering that if you do not write it into the bill, councils may not do it, and it just becomes optional. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022cf54990f264f5af53b614699d32720bf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cf54990f264f5af53b614699d32720bf\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:24)\u003C/span\u003E: When I read the clause, it says that they do take into account relevant Treaty settlements and voluntary statutory agreements with local iwi, hap\u016B, and M\u0101ori.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002857\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022daae45c0582d7060d06fd20904313530\u0022\u003EH\u016Bhana Lyndon\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, may I reply and ask a further question?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002858\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002223a8394eb482c511a4c15ce855213299\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: You can ask a further question. H\u016Bhana Lyndon.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022 data-id=\u002292ece26380ff02b85251fe5c9e3bc487\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002859\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002292ece26380ff02b85251fe5c9e3bc487\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON (Green) (22:25)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, so I can see that it\u2019s written in there that they must take into account, but that doesn\u2019t necessarily compel the council or local authority to actually work with; it could be just a desktop exercise. So how do we monitor local authorities to do a good job in the way that they do take into account these local hap\u016B, iwi, and M\u0101ori agreements?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00228da2d92870a4be19d76f0dcf62579701\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002860\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228da2d92870a4be19d76f0dcf62579701\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:25)\u003C/span\u003E: \u201CTake into account\u201D is a well-understood legal term. Councils need to follow the law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u0022fe5614db5c4e30a781872123e5875f9a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002861\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fe5614db5c4e30a781872123e5875f9a\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (22:25)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m really interested in asking about the aquaculture provisions in Schedule 11, proposed on Amendment Paper 709. I\u2019m particularly interested in that because aquaculture is one area where in this term of Government we\u2019ve seen some really serious changes, particularly with the blanket rollover of consents to 2050\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002862\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225beaac3b1640b80a0a39d3bb8bb1a321\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Can you please direct me to the page that you\u2019re currently on?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002863\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002268745ac71ea054dae02d9b249b84a54e\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, so the page number\u2014it starts at page 548\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002864\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022946ef1c17e10d46a1929ec90ce9d5bb8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002865\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002262ba560b348752e1d93bf7fdadb7b23e\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014in Schedule 11, but it moves over to the following page, page 549, and these are direct amendments to the Resource Management Act (RMA) itself. These are part of the last-minute amendments that the Minister has just introduced on I think it was Friday. Like many of my colleagues and, I\u2019m sure, interested parties out there across the country, we\u2019re grappling with what these actually mean, and so I\u2019m really interested in some fulsome answers from the member, where he can do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002866\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat I\u2019m interested in specifically is that this is amending section 68A(2) of the RMA, and this is to allow an aquaculture activity as a permitted activity where the rule actually applies to space where in aquaculture activity is authorised by a current coastal permit. Now, what\u2019s important to note about this is that all of these coastal permits have already had this blanket extension out to 2050. Is the intent of this\u2014and we don\u2019t know; we\u2019ve had no information apart from the amendments just landing\u2014to give councils discretion to roll over existing aquaculture activities, including discharges which come from these agriculture activities, without the need for a statutory assessment as to whether these activities actually continue to be appropriate, because this is the real concern about what\u2019s being introduced here. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002867\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHas the member or his Government assessed the actual risks of this extremely wide discretion on councils? For example, as we know, consents for many of these activities were actually granted before the Resource Management Act was put in place in 1991. There are many outdated consents that are in serious need of some form of assessment, particularly when it comes to the risks with not only environmental impacts but biosecurity impacts. I\u2019m really keen to hear about that because we know that with increasing climate change, this is going to be an increasing issue\u2014and I\u2019m noting that the member is ready to answer. I\u2019ve got some more questions, but I\u2019ll let him answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00223dc6f9d65ee5c08074beddebd32ebdbb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002868\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223dc6f9d65ee5c08074beddebd32ebdbb\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:29)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I understand the member Lan Pham was referring to the Resource Management Act (RMA) amendments in Part 1 of Schedule 11, which come into effect on the Royal assent. I understand that that has referenced clause 68A\u2014I may have got that wrong, but I\u2019m going to speak to it. It applies the natural and built environment\u2019s approach to permitted aquaculture to the RMA. It\u2019s a transitional rule and it authorises aquaculture in the coastal marine area \u201Cas a permitted activity \u2026 if the rule applies solely to a space where an aquaculture activity is authorised by a current coastal permit.\u201D\u2014that\u2019s important. The activity is already authorised, by current permitting process under the RMA, and this change will help provide a more enabling consenting pathway for aquaculture in aquaculture settlement areas during the transition period.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002869\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAquaculture settlement areas, I say for the benefit of the member and members of the House who are listening, are provided as part of a Treaty settlement. As far as I\u2019m aware, no aquaculture has ever been initiated in a settlement are that was provided to M\u0101ori claimants, and that is because the RMA made it too hard. So if there\u2019s one thing that this Government intends, it\u2019s to enable M\u0101ori to make the greatest use of their economic and natural resource assets. This is one way this Government is delivering profit for M\u0101ori, amongst many others, and I\u2019m sure the member will support it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u002224ca3782d3fcf1cc286dd8887e1cbf87\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002870\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002224ca3782d3fcf1cc286dd8887e1cbf87\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (22:30)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for those responses. I\u2019m really interested in where the justification for these changes came from.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00229bb24e8a0ecb6da60b696eb250b78548\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002871\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229bb24e8a0ecb6da60b696eb250b78548\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:31)\u003C/span\u003E: As I\u2019ve previously stated, since the aquaculture settlement was arrived at with iwi, which I understand is decades ago, no aquaculture has been established in these settlement areas. There are some who say, like Minister Bishop, that it could amount to a modern Treaty breach if we don\u2019t enable aquaculture in these areas. This is one way this Government is delivering for M\u0101ori\u2014those who have these aquaculture settlements. It\u2019s clear and the legislation is clear.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u0022f9284bd002f828f51e8d1f20be04142d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002872\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f9284bd002f828f51e8d1f20be04142d\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (22:31)\u003C/span\u003E: So why did it not come through the select committee process? Why has it come in at this point? Why?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00229799879b49c5e96974129b06bc8be283\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002873\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229799879b49c5e96974129b06bc8be283\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:32)\u003C/span\u003E: This is an improvement to the bill, and I\u2019m sure the member will support it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022ec3920c75d7350c7494d71d353cbc62f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002874\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ec3920c75d7350c7494d71d353cbc62f\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (22:32)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m going to go back to Part 6, and I just have two small questions on that and then I do have an amendment and questions on Schedule 11 but I will do those in a different call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002875\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EFirst of all, I\u2019m going to clause 261, \u201CInsurance against fines unlawful\u201D, and it\u2019s saying that insurance companies cannot indemnify, which is great. I was going to ask the member how long he thinks this will take to implement with the insurance companies, but I think that this is the same or similar wording to one of the amendments made in 2023. So if he could just confirm whether the insurance provisions\u2014that you must insure\u2014are already in force, or how they will be transitioned and how problematic it is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022718e88f5ed0b56b73e174fd488dc082f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002876\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022718e88f5ed0b56b73e174fd488dc082f\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:32)\u003C/span\u003E: This is a carry-over from amendments made to the Resource Management Act recently that I think the member is familiar with, with a couple of drafting corrections.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022e25dfde0dadb873cdb176317b3779c9a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002877\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e25dfde0dadb873cdb176317b3779c9a\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (22:33)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I\u2019m going then to clause 282, \u201CRegulations relating to consent-processing time frames and procedures\u201D, and to clause 282(1)(d), which is \u201Cproposed designations:\u201D, and clause 282(1)(e), which is \u201Cconstruction management plans and waivers for construction management plans.\u201D\u2014so they relate to designations included in this regulation-making power. I was wondering if the member could comment on why it is that\u2014well, why is this a new regulation-making power? Has that come from somewhere else, and why is there a need for regulations to be made about time frames for designations?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022e6016f81ff03ff18b2eb1188cb8f4d44\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002878\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e6016f81ff03ff18b2eb1188cb8f4d44\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:34)\u003C/span\u003E: This is a regulation-making power for consented permit processing time frames and procedures. It adds a general regulation power for designation time frames and procedures, including for the waiver of construction project plans. It\u2019s intended to provide appropriate guard rails, time frames, and standardised process for applicants and for those assessing applications.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u00224d3a0206517045b4b59732a06a283790\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002879\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224d3a0206517045b4b59732a06a283790\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (22:35)\u003C/span\u003E: I want to bring the member in the chair to clause 256, which is about the penalties regime. It\u2019s important context for the committee that these penalties in the Resource Management Act were last updated in 2025, so quite recently, and there are some changes I want to ask him about. The first is, at clause 256(2)(b) there is a new category of offending for businesses, and it\u0027s a five-fold increase from the old penalty which would have applied. So I want to ask him about the justification for that new penalty.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002880\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI guess this is a related question: the old resource management system had old section 339B, which was an additional penalty added on top for offending which was for the purpose of commercial gain, and under that old system the ability was for the court to levy a penalty, which was, I think, up to three times the amount of commercial gain, and that seems to have been lost in this regime. So I want to ask the member in the chair if that is right. Is that gone or is it provided for elsewhere in the Act\u2014that sort of increasing penalty to do with the commercial gain\u2014or has it been replaced by this $50,000 a day fine?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002881\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also want to ask the member in the chair about clause 256(3). This has gone up from $10,000 to $15,000. It\u2019s only gone up in the last year, so really the question is a broader point about whether the deterrent in that sort of fine regime is working. Does the member in the chair have any insight into whether prosecutions have been brought and whether the penalties do get up to the 2025 maximum. That is the question really\u2014whether this kind of fining regime is being used. That is relevant because earlier in this debate we\u2019ve had discussions about how to both punish and deter serial-offending developers. There are real cases where the Court of Appeal has considered that kind of development, but we also had a very firm assurance from the Minister responsible for this bill that the 2018 case which the Court of Appeal considered would be dealt with by his legislation. I think that what we\u2019re seeing here is an upping of the penalties which is meant to deter that as well as those harder provisions. But I want to make sure with the member in charge if this is what\u2019s doing it or if it\u2019s elsewhere.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002206b0c9543687ed24e63c1ab9c03d2930\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002882\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002206b0c9543687ed24e63c1ab9c03d2930\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Just to be clear, the major penalties which appear here include clause 256(1)(b), a fine not exceeding $10 million. That was provided for in changes to the Resource Management Act recently. The changes in this legislation are only adjusting the minor penalties, but in response to the member\u2019s question around commercial gain, a provision that provides for monetary benefit orders\u2014in other words, those who get a monetary benefit from offending\u2014is provided for in Schedule 8, and it replaces the commercial gain that was previously three times the penalty.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022c92f5af5f7947e1f7312ecbde86c266f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002883\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c92f5af5f7947e1f7312ecbde86c266f\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (22:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the member a straightforward question first. We see that there is movement regarding the enforcement officer section from clauses 217 to 226 to now clause 246(a) to (j). Can I just check\u2014are they just wholesale listed and then moving to a new section? OK, cool. I got a nod\u2014thank you so much. I\u2019m going to move on to the next clause.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002884\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002234c882fdc8f2ceb3a307c6af2724c5d6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019ll just put a quick answer on the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E, if that\u2019s OK. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002885\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226a254c5ebae531255d012a90645d498e\u0022\u003ESimon Court\u003C/span\u003E: If you got a nod from me, that means yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002886\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cae5655af7250577895f4a65aadf0f79\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Great\u2014amazing. Thank you. I\u2019ll move on clauses 250 and 251, and these are to do with the power of entry for inspection. The first question is when we\u2019re looking at clauses 250 and 251, can a person take other enforcement agencies along with them as part of that inspection or entry for survey. That\u2019s my first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002887\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMy second question is: when they are entering for survey, we are seeing that subclause (1)(d) has been removed regarding entering or re-entering land. I don\u2019t see any provision in terms of the number of times that someone can enter a land for survey. Does that mean they need to notify every time they enter a particular piece of land, with that provision removed, clause 251(1)(d)? Can a person\u2014in this case, an enforcement officer\u2014enter for the purpose of serving an inspection at the same time, noting that surveys, based on the reading of clause 251, require prior notification, whereas inspection does not? So I want to check with the under-secretary on those questions first, and I have follow-up questions depending on the response.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022ea041e03dba0cf7e740346e2c602178c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002888\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ea041e03dba0cf7e740346e2c602178c\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:40)\u003C/span\u003E: In terms of clause 250, the wording has been changed to simply reflect policy intent\u2014that an officer does not need individual authority for every individual inspection. In terms of clause 251, \u201CPower of entry for survey\u201D, it better reflects the policy intent\u2014as I mentioned, the officer does not need authority for every individual inspection. There was another question around\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229276a140ad70d750cb5350b634ea589e\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Can they take someone else with them?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002890\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002235155326d19f3e50dbbac50b002a6e48\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: Can they can take someone else with them\u2014thank you for clarifying, Mr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2014yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002891\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229c240f6f2c814d0601ff94dc329adea8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Lan Pham.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002892\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022af2426c6674e283fc7cb5e56c03e60fa\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c1c42d19b75d5bc8e35175b9fed65e7c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, I\u2019ve just called Lan Pham. Was that a clarification?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002894\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002257e598382dfa6f33f068a4ab7c5b94c8\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: Did you want to clarify?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002895\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229bd0c45bcf6d6c6d82bf06364733c1bb\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: No, you can\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002896\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002286f4486c3406b1ed1af8978a3835a6a3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll take Lan Pham\u2019s question; we can come back to you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u0022adcc73e970d0e4fd6395c9a0c1358a2d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002897\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022adcc73e970d0e4fd6395c9a0c1358a2d\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (22:41)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to get to one of the Minister\u2019s amendments in Schedule 11. This is an amendment to the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper (AP) that was just introduced last night. It\u2019s a really disappointing AP.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002898\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226d960e0232208d98696a96c615422d1a\u0022\u003ESimon Court\u003C/span\u003E: Aren\u2019t we supposed to clarify\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002899\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002244036776dbf72a4293d7f553c4b7a707\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, the number?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002900\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224508bcfcfa8b27140f89fe2257327f6e\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, it doesn\u2019t have one; it just has a timestamp\u20147.26 p.m., \u201CPlanning Bill\u201D, \u201CProposed Amendments to AP No. 709\u201D. Is that OK, Madam Chair?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002901\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c12d722d78f0186ba380a95b4a6ed518\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019ve got a copy of it now. So ask your question and then\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002902\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022def801e4ddd3883c59f5f3365b4d68d7\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. The aspects that I really would like to hear from the member on are the really disappointing ones around not only Plan Change 2, which amends the One Plan when it comes to the Manawat\u016B and the Horizons Regional Council, but also Plan Change 1, which was the plan change to the Waikato Regional Plan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002903\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe thing that I\u2019m really interested in hearing about is what the member\u2019s and the Government\u2019s understanding is of the processes and the people and the community and the iwi and hap\u016B. For example, in Plan Change 1, in the Waikato, after14 years of work and consultation with iwi, farmers, growers, councils, industry, environmental groups, it was reaching its conclusion. Why was it not allowed to be part of this transition, when we know that plans are unlikely to be in place, at best, until the early 2030s? In the case of Plan Change 1, I understand it is 2032, and then consent requirements will be coming in in 2033. So that\u2019s six or seven years from where we are now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002904\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m really keen to hear about this, because we know it came in at the last minute. It wasn\u2019t part of the select committee process, and we\u2019ve heard really clear disappointment, particularly from iwi and hap\u016B, about how dismayed they are about Government getting in the way of simply putting in place basic protections around freshwater, around biodiversity, around anything that would\u2019ve helped address the very real issues which are going on in both of these areas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002905\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Government is, through this Amendment Paper, both council and Environment Court decisions\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002906\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022abbf758dd606d3b49ff71fc5679ca5b9\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: So the first question was why didn\u2019t the Minister let this run its course\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002907\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002245dd144a30c7b30ef2506b646f5f5cb6\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM\u003C/span\u003E: Why can\u2019t this be part of the transition\u2014so let it run its course; let the transitional things happen for the next six or seven years with these in place. The next question is: why are the farming interests being prioritised over broader public iwi and hap\u016B interests? How will the water quality targets that already exist in the planning framework be reached within sensible time frames? The entirety of this delay is not just for these areas but it\u2019s across the country because of the planning stock provisions that the Government has as well. How is, for example, Horizons Regional Council and Waikato Regional Council supposed to meet not only public expectations but the expectations within their own planning framework about actually achieving environmental outcomes and improvement?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00221b9c12e054ac154bb26bce15509dcd31\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002908\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221b9c12e054ac154bb26bce15509dcd31\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:46)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for the question. I\u2019ll start with Plan Change 1 (PC1) and then I will answer the member\u2019s questions about Plan Change 2 (PC2). Where the matters are conflated or similar, I\u2019ll respond to them as one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002909\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Government has taken the decision to suspend the implementation of some but not all of those plans, and that is because they would have been very expensive to implement, time-consuming to implement. It involved a lot of resources, both from local government, primary production, and, of course, many other technical experts are required, and it was judged, on balance, that it made more sense to defer some aspects of those plans so that they wouldn\u2019t be implemented.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, let\u2019s be clear: farmers and growers continuing to operate as permitted activities will still be required to comply with Schedule C, which sets out minimum farming standards, until 31 December 2032, and the intention is for PC1 that some aspects of the plans will continue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002911\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe member asked about engagement. There\u2019s been significant engagement with Waikato and Waip\u0101 River iwi on the proposed changes to PC1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002912\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224d9ee31173ebe172ade6a1d0cf8018d0\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: They don\u2019t like it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002913\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fb2875b0a2f54ce9f6c268bbe58f9016\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: If the member wishes to ask a question, take a call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002914\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOn PC2, the member had similar questions: why is it being implemented? The answer: complex, time-consuming, expensive, and because the new system is going to establish new ways of working, including, under the Natural Environment Bill, providing for environmental limits\u2014and we can get to that when we get to the Natural Environment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe considered it best to defer the progress of some aspects of Plan Change 2\u2014the proposed Horizons Plan Change 2, which amends the One Plan\u2014but on the basis that good management practice must still be identified through nutrient management plans and implemented, where consents are granted, within two years. Existing farms will still be able to obtain controlled activity consents, continue operating lawfully under the regional plan, but without being required to achieve quantified nitrogen reductions and undertake associated nutrient management modelling.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002916\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere is a new system coming in, under these reforms, which is going to provide a much simpler way, through environmental limits and other controls, to achieve the environmental objectives for both the Waikato and Waip\u0101 regions, and the Horizons Manawat\u016B region. I know the member will have many questions about that when we get to that part of the reform, on the Natural Environment Bill. I look forward to engaging at that time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u00223afb04f140e90c676f721afe5e27f3a2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002917\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223afb04f140e90c676f721afe5e27f3a2\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (22:50)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Is the member Simon Court and his Government comfortable with the risk that water quality will go backwards? Because, as he\u2019s just pointed out in his own words, existing intensive farming will be able to continue without demonstrating compliance with quantified nitrogen reduction requirements or associated nutrient modelling requirements. Now, all this would do is actually demonstrate and provide for farmers their own footprint about what these discharges actually are and enable them to reduce them, if that is required. So if that is not happening, what does the member perceive to be the outcome?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022aec28e96fa84328a25e64b4280719719\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002918\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022aec28e96fa84328a25e64b4280719719\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:51)\u003C/span\u003E: I will go over again the answer I gave the member Lan Pham to her previous question. The proposal was intended to defer some environment planning consenting requirements rather than removing existing safeguards\u2014that\u2019s for Plan Change 1 (PC1). Farmers and growers who continue to operate as permitted activities will still be required to comply with minimum farming standards set out in Schedule C. That\u2019s PC1. That\u2019s twice I\u2019ve answered that. Plan Change 2 (PC2), Horizons Plan Change 2, otherwise known as the One Plan: existing farms will still be required to obtain controlled activity consents. Good management practice will still be identified through nutrient management plans and implemented within two years of consent being granted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002919\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThere is going to be progress towards improving water quality in both of these regions. It may not be in the way that the plans as they were submitted, notified, consulted on, spent years in court, might have played out, but, let\u2019s be honest, no one knew how that was going to work in some cases, and that\u2019s why we\u2019ve stopped it and that\u2019s why we\u2019re creating a new system. It\u2019s going to be much clearer for participants, including those who have a genuine interest in improving water quality, not just in those two regions but all around New Zealand. I look forward to getting into the detail of that when we get to the Natural Environment Bill, because I know that that member is very interested in how that system works.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002920\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dcbacc57834c12b609b5bfd8b6c9da5c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: H\u016Bhana Lyndon.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022 data-id=\u0022f202dc1452b0d4bce3912cc4517927ce\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002921\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f202dc1452b0d4bce3912cc4517927ce\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON (Green) (22:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Did you say me?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002922\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002235768d32c1097c5c2b694261648db65c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002923\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226b653ac3eb8659b7a8e30816e778469e\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, me! OK\u2014cool. Kia ora. Kia ora to the member Simon Court. I wanted to ask questions around emergency response regulations, which can be found on page 214.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002924\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b2614b20909cb1e704621a3f532e8cd8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Have you got the page and clause?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221d59add587603022982bc38041d02094\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON\u003C/span\u003E: Page 214\u2014so Part 6, clause 279. It\u2019s around emergency response regulations and the ability for the Governor-General, by Order in Council, to make regulations for the purposes of all the hazards, all the emergency-type responses, etc. Then, I want to bring the member over to clause 279A, and it\u2019s great to see, in paragraph (f) of clause 279A(2), that \u201Caffected local authorities and the following groups, [where] relevant,\u201D are invited to provide written comments about the proposed regulations. So this is feedback to the Minister on what\u2019s proposed. There\u2019s iwi authorities, there\u2019s post-settlement governance entities (PSGEs), there\u2019s ng\u0101 hap\u016B o Ng\u0101ti Porou as per their own legislation; iwi or hap\u016B who are party to the\u2014crossed out\u2014Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe joint management agreements that apply to their region; even customary marine title groups; protected customary rights groups, which is great; and then applicants to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011. That\u2019s really cool. Awesome. High five. There\u2019s provision there for the M\u0101ori groups to be consulted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002926\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat I have p\u0101tai around is the next steps around these M\u0101ori groups to be consulted, because seeking comment from them is within 10 working days from the date on which the Minister invites comments, or it could be for a longer period specified by the Minister, in writing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002927\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy question, particularly on this one, is how consultation and seeking input or comment from these M\u0101ori groups makes an assumption that they are resourced for this purpose, and then the time constraints of the turn-round time, whereby the Minister could require 10 working days, or other, for these M\u0101ori groups to respond. My p\u0101tai is really around the application of this legislation, the Planning Bill, and resource support for these M\u0101ori groups who have been outlined and listed to be able to\u2014is there a cost recovery mechanism? What is the plan? Because, often times, even if they are a resourced PSGE or they are an iwi entity\u2014it might be a mandated iwi organisation with a little bit of fish dollar here and there; by and large, if you\u2019re a marine and coastal area takutai moana claimant, you\u2019re working off reimbursements from time to time, and as hap\u016B or others with agreements or relationships with local councils in this space, it\u2019s going to be pretty limited resourcing. So how do we expect the M\u0101ori to respond in a timely fashion in this legislation without resource?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002244a95fd0b4190d7a96f62df40e2fc46a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002928\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002244a95fd0b4190d7a96f62df40e2fc46a\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:56)\u003C/span\u003E: Addressing the member H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s question about the time frame, first, the 10-working-day time frame is because it\u2019s an emergency and 10 days is all we\u2019ve allowed for. In response to the member\u2019s questions about resourcing funding for organisations that may be consulted on, that\u2019s not within the scope of this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022dd7cffefc9ca4dbcc25efc73956db23b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002929\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dd7cffefc9ca4dbcc25efc73956db23b\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (22:56)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002930\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022afe29aab01a1609bc5a44f796af3041b\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Oh.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002931\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224ab84056a917a33e42aefa30d8baba01\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: He was really quick to his feet\u2014that\u2019s the only reason.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002932\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225d88e09b73f61df61825589a859764af\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, I\u2019m sorry\u2014the Hon Rachel Brooking.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002933\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229fe7d05891e587da2c0d1a1c9de96951\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Do you want to go? OK, we\u2019ll go with Rachel Brooking. You were enthusiastic, but he was faster, that\u2019s all. All right, just go for it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u002209d245e609e3959a698debc5d0f3cf2e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002934\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002209d245e609e3959a698debc5d0f3cf2e\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (22:56)\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, I\u2019ve been in the Chamber all day. I\u2019ve been here since 9 a.m., Mr Chair. Now, I want to talk to Schedule\u00A011, which I haven\u2019t been on yet. It is important to note that there are a lot of changes that have been made to Schedule 11 through the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper 709, and then through the amendment to the amendment, and then the amendments to the amendment to the amendment, which I have an amendment on. Just to demonstrate this, if you look at Schedule 11\u2014and something may have happened to my eyesight\u2014page 516, you\u2019ll see at the start of that page it says, \u201CPart 1 Amendments to Acts that commence on day after this Act receives Royal assent\u201D\u2014so that\u2019s soon; that\u2019s Part 1. But then you turn the page over to 519 and there is \u201CPart 3 Provisions relating to Planning Act 2025 and Natural Environment Act 2025\u201D. This is all in tracked change, so it\u2019s difficult to know what that Part 3 is referring to when there\u2019s no Part 2. Then it also makes it very difficult to make amendments to this schedule as well because it jumps around with these various different parts and all of the lists of all of the different legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do have some amendments that I will speak to, and excuse me if some of the numbers are not quite right. One of them is my tabled amendment, my first one on Schedule 11, which was tabled on 25 August at 7.36.02 and it is to delete the proposed new 2A that is related to the Fast-track Approvals Act that commences one month after this Act Royal assent, and that is to all of those provisions. It might be that the member in the chair, Simon Court, wants to say what those provisions are about and why he doesn\u2019t agree with my amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002936\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen, if we go to another amendment\u2014and this is a tabled amendment\u2014I\u2019m now on page 532. That is Amendment Paper 741. In Part 1 of Schedule 11, on page 532, three-quarters of the way down the page, under Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000, at section 10(5), at the end of one of the coloured-in boxes, it says, \u201Cthe national instrument prevails\u201D, I would replace that with \u201Csections 7 and 8 prevail\u201D. That\u2019s another change just trying to ramp up the status of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act. Maybe the member can comment on that, as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002937\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI have some other amendments. I want to comment on the discussion that was had with Lan Pham before and some of the member\u2019s comments about why those changes to Plan Change 1 were made. Waikato was the one that he was referring to. He said that there had been discussions with iwi and he made it sound as if the iwi were happy with the provisions relating to Waikato Regional Council\u2019s Plan Change 1. I\u2019m asking the member in the chair if he can confirm that I heard right and that he is, in fact, saying that those Waikato Regional Council Plan Change 1 changes are something that the Waikato River settlement iwi want. If he thinks about it some more and decides that that\u2019s not the case, perhaps he would like to endorse and vote for my amendment that was tabled today at 6.31 p.m., and that is to delete the proposed additions (ba) and (bb) after clause 74B\u2014because that is not what I have heard.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002938\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMr Chair, if I can just go for a short period more on this, there\u2019s also this issue with the Manawat\u016B-Whanganui regional council One Plan. The member in the chair said about them, \u201COh, we don\u2019t know. We didn\u2019t know how they were going to turn out at the Environment Court. They\u2019ve turned out of the Environment Court now and we\u2019re going to change the whole scheme of things at some point in the future and talk about it in a different bill, so we should just press pause.\u201D That is what this Government has done time and time again to planning documents that protect the environment. These planning documents have gone through the court process over many years and at great expense, and just like this House did recently in the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ESmith v Fonterra\u003C/span\u003E case, they are taking away the result of that court process, and that is atrocious.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002939\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThese amendments have just come in on 26 August at 7.26 p.m. We started on this bill on 25 August at 7.30 p.m., four minutes after this amendment to the amendment was tabled, and whilst Ministers might have said something about it, this is a terrible way to make laws. The member in the chair is not taking the time to talk through what this means, about the commercial vegetable growing being permitted. He\u2019s made some hasty comments to Lan Pham\u2014in a terse voice, may I add. I do wonder if the member can agree with me that this is a significant matter to be including: that people have gone to court, they\u2019ve gotten a result, and now, in effect, what we are doing is overturning part of that result. Is that correct? That\u2019s one question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002940\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second one was about whether the river authorities think that the amendment is fine regarding Plan Change 1, and if he will agree with my amendment to delete the Minister\u2019s amendment to the amendment. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022a14329cf9efcbddaf8415fec80e69daf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002941\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a14329cf9efcbddaf8415fec80e69daf\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (23:04)\u003C/span\u003E: Three great questions. Well, for those watching and present in the Chamber, if my tone was serious, that\u2019s all it was. This is a serious matter. This Government intends to replace the Resource Management Act (RMA) with a system that\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002942\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022443f23de4cbd464f91833e6c466c98c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224ba9ac84cc1d8ea0632bd0eba9a00e0a\u0022\u003ETodd Stephenson\u003C/span\u003E: That works\u2014it just works.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002943\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fa30775366bf21b3fda5c3aba0e954f5\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014provides for the enjoyment of property, and, as Todd Stephenson pointed out, works.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002944\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo the member the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s question about the river iwi, they were consulted on, they provided feedback, and it is not for me to look into the minds of others to determine whether they\u2019re happy or not. What we have done is provide for Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato as the preeminent tool for managing the environment as set out in the bill and the Act. That\u2019s what we intended to do. We intended to give, to the fullest extent possible, effect to the Treaty settlements and to give them the same effect as they have in the RMA. So, while the Government has put a stop to and deferred some aspects of Plan Change 1, what we would expect to see is, while that is deferred\u2014and I\u2019m just searching for a note\u2014we have also included a requirement when new plans are made under the new system to have regard to Plan Change 1 when developing natural environment plans, to acknowledge the work done to date. It\u2019s a serious matter\u2014water quality in the Waikato and the Waip\u0101\u2014and we want to make sure that it\u2019s addressed, but it won\u2019t be through some of the provisions of Plan Change 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002945\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe member had a question about the Hauraki Gulf. The amendments made to the legislation uphold the existing relationship that the Hauraki Gulf has with respect to the Resource Management Act. I think that\u2019s enough for now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022b9dcda3d27e32c10fb7597aed0b6a5ac\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002946\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b9dcda3d27e32c10fb7597aed0b6a5ac\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (23:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I know that my colleagues will still have questions regarding the Minister responsible for RMA Reform\u2019s last-minute amendment, but I do want to check a few things with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary Simon Court, starting with clause 270. Again, I\u2019m looking at, specifically, amendments that were made in the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper\u00A0709. For clause 270, on page 208, a new provision has been added, which is clause 270(1)(b), around section 21 on the Summary Proceedings Act 1957.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002947\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, section 21 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 allows certain infringement notices to be given by the District Court. We have seen previously that, in this case, the Environment Court has the same power conferred to them as the District Court. Can I check with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary that, in this case, an infringement notice can also be issued by the Environment Court if it had the same power as the District Court? That\u2019s my first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002948\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 271(1) is what\u2019s going to empower, I guess, Schedule 8, so I\u2019m going to ask a question regarding Schedule 8. On pages 446 and 447\u2014this is clause 20 of Schedule\u00A08\u2014I\u2019m specifically looking at the changes that were made in clause 20(1)(c) and clause 28. This is Amendment Paper 709. In both cases, \u201Cenforceable undertaking\u201D has been removed\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002949\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002268e901fa9a8e81c702a908ee8203d6a5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, which Amendment Paper was that again?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002950\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228d35b97280db7de70ede647d2f6450ea\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: This is the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper 709, pages 446 and 447, clause 20(1)(c) and clause 8. Both of them are serving the same purpose. Can I just check, when you\u2019re talking about non-compliance in the case of an enforcement undertaking and offered as part of an enforcement undertaking, because I see that enforcement undertaking is still a tool that is being used, are they being removed? Because, in this case, enforceable undertaking as opposed to, I think, prosecution is no longer available in instances of non-compliance under adverse publicity orders. Can I check with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary on that particular reading, since both have been deleted?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002951\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002295ea27aeea6746d7ee4269d00d0d8e29\u0022\u003ESimon Court\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002952\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022658a25a4450277fbb8e6f28cad4be23e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: He\u2019s still going.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002953\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002256d42cb092d56eac90d3d6996cc11c48\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry. I can actually wait, if the member has\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002954\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c5e48009586807eb8d9d8f43bc50cee7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Do you want to go?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022c3dc8d18d4718a546039e3d5152c676d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002955\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c3dc8d18d4718a546039e3d5152c676d\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (23:09)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, let\u2019s crack into it. Enforceable undertaking is provided for in clause 2, Schedule 28, page 447. It\u2019s all set out there. I invite the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan to read it, familiarise himself with it\u2014it\u2019s very helpful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002956\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 1: the Environment Court is a civil court; the District Court provides criminal penalties. They\u2019re different. We\u2019ll leave it at that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00229692ce45de72412514bc72dc2e8c6111\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002957\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229692ce45de72412514bc72dc2e8c6111\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (23:10)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I will move on to proposed clause 217A. This particular section is also quite a substantial addition. I can\u2019t see that part being transferred from other parts. This is \u201CProceedings against the Crown\u201D. Correct me if that\u2019s a move from another section. Can I check with the under-secretary what the rationale is for this particular clause, seeing as it also came to the House post - select committee stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002958\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI noticed that a number of my colleagues have moved on to Schedule 11. Now, one of the questions I have for Schedule 11 is, there has been a number of additions and changes, and one of the things we have seen throughout this bill is changes around\u2014I can\u2019t remember the specific section, but what I\u2019ve found is there are a lot of mentions of particularly iwi settlements or changes in the legislation that, potentially, will have consequential amendments because of the removal and the repeal of the Resource Management Act (RMA). One of the bills that I have not seen there\u2014considering this Amendment Paper 709 came to the House last Friday, I believe, as well as a new tabled amendment by the Minister just yesterday, I would like to ask the member why Te Here \u0101 Nuku (Nelson Tenths) Act, which was given Royal assent last Thursday and which has significant mentions of the RMA as well, is not mentioned in any of the amendments by the Minister at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022cc464ac3e5755348134fffb41ea70956\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cc464ac3e5755348134fffb41ea70956\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (23:12)\u003C/span\u003E: In response to the member\u2019s question on how the Act applies to the Crown, for the member\u2019s benefit, proposed clause 271A is a move from 9(5) to (12).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022 data-id=\u00222032f8a64c99c5c663d0301deb1f41cb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002960\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222032f8a64c99c5c663d0301deb1f41cb\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North) (23:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Kia orana, Mr Chair. I\u2019d like to ask the member a question in relation to clause 282A. This is relating to the \u201CRegulations [for] hearings processes and hearings authorities\u201D. Now, one proposed change here in subclause (1)(a) is, effectively, the removal of the word \u201Cefficient\u201D. The first question is whether or not the Government\u2019s intention is for those hearings to not be efficient but rather just be focused on control, as the removal of the word seems to indicate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002961\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe second is in relation to subclause (1)(b). This is where the Governor-General may make regulations around the eligibility for appointment as hearing commissioners. Now, it says there, \u201Cincluding requirements that those persons must be accredited:\u201D. Now, in this Chamber, we\u2019ve heard from members about the nature of accreditation. I think Mr Arbuckle talked about the fact, previously, when this bill was before the House, that he himself had been an accredited hearings commissioner. I think that might have been when he was in his dual role as an MP and a district councillor at the same time. But, none the less, the question that I have for the Minister is: is it the intention of the Government that there is no accreditation as a possibility, or is it that there is still accreditation but that the type of accreditation might change? At the moment, it\u2019s the making good decisions accreditation\u2014that\u2019s what it\u2019s commonly known as. That\u2019s what is required for people to be credited. So is it more that there is a possibility that regulations exist or could be made to not allow for accredited persons, or just that there is still accreditation, but the nature could change from making good decisions to some other sort of title? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00229d257df9b493ead4646b830a64693bc9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002962\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229d257df9b493ead4646b830a64693bc9\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (23:14)\u003C/span\u003E: We have taken the decision that the details around the accreditation of commissioners do not need to be in primary legislation. For all of those fascinated by the detail, the layout, and the processes in this legislation, this is an example of modern drafting, where matters such as the details about who can be a commissioner and their accreditation can be left to secondary legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022 data-id=\u0022c10f8891db7ae785d1b5e434cc83101a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002963\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c10f8891db7ae785d1b5e434cc83101a\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North) (23:14)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I appreciate the response, but the response does not address the second part of the question that I posed\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002964\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002293ebdaaa4d23c96a38b3494e157eeebf\u0022\u003EHon Simeon Brown\u003C/span\u003E: I think it did.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002965\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c7bc89eab0c537e12566fdec61e9dad0\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE\u003C/span\u003E: Well, Mr Brown might think that it did, but he\u2019s not in the chair. Is this seeking to allow for those appointed to hearings panels to not have any accreditation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002235951e03908f3339dcb1f5591869aad0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002966\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002235951e03908f3339dcb1f5591869aad0\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (23:15)\u003C/span\u003E: As I pointed out, the details about who is qualified or accredited and what the processes are for those to be appointed can sit quite safely and with the fullness of time can be developed in a way that, potentially, the member even wants to contribute to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u002226ecd4f4e36667bf410f134b8614aa9e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002967\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002226ecd4f4e36667bf410f134b8614aa9e\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (23:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019m still waiting on a response from the member in the chair regarding my question around Te Here \u0101 Nuku (Nelson Tenths) Act. In that Act, it does mention the Resource Management Act (RMA), and if the RMA is repealed under this bill and that Act mentions that, what does it mean for that particular Act that was just passed last week? I think that would be helpful to note.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002968\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESince we\u2019re talking about secondary legislation, I think, then, this is a good time to move on to clause 281 on \u201CRegulations\u201D. I want to focus on a couple of things here. Number one is the proposed addition of (1)(d), through Amendment Paper 709, which is around \u201Cprescribing the form \u2026 (i) for any application, notice, certificate or other document or information required under this Act:\u201D I just want to check on the rationale for that particular addition.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002969\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the things that\u2019s interesting, I think, from a Regulations Review Committee perspective, is (1)(g), which is around the prescription of fees under this section. I wondered if the chair of the Regulations Review Committee may also be interested in delving further into this as well. Part of that is to do with the fees that are going to be prescribed in this case and how one would be able to check that the fees are charged in a way that measures the kind of requirement\u2014because the idea of fees is to offset the function of a particular board or particular registry agency, but I just want to check whether there are any provisions around the fees setting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002970\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I notice that there are other sections here as well, but I think one of the things that I can\u2019t see at this stage is whether there is any formal requirement for a review process as well in terms of any regulations. Now, we\u2019ve seen a large number of regulations that are mentioned throughout this particular bill. There\u2019s a lot of secondary legislations involved, but that also, again, potentially means that there needs to be some sort of review mechanisms for that secondary legislation as well. That will be, I guess, in many ways, a sensible thing to do. But what I\u2019m seeing is no mention, at this stage, of any sort of sunset clause or any particular review mechanisms. I do have additional questions because clauses 281 and 282 have some quite significant changes in Amendment Paper 709, but I\u2019ll leave those questions for the time being.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00223ac2a131f7a8ef81dad1fd701a16d147\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002971\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223ac2a131f7a8ef81dad1fd701a16d147\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (23:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Going back to the member\u2019s question about the Nelson Tenths, despite the fact that the legislation was only passed last week, it does mention the Resource Management Act (RMA) replacement legislation too. It\u2019s futureproofed, and it refers to subdivision under the RMA, which will remain under that legislation for the transition period until the new legislation fully transitions. We\u2019ve got that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002972\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAs far as fee setting is concerned, that\u2019s a carry-over from the RMA. If the member was familiar with the Resource Management Act, as I\u2019m sure at least 1\u00BD people in this Chamber are, that would not be new.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022be6eac6b6e961f12e63a719d057fc26e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002973\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022be6eac6b6e961f12e63a719d057fc26e\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (23:19)\u003C/span\u003E: I want to go back to the discussion I was having with the member in the chair about the Waikato River Authority and Plan Change 1. He said that we\u2019ve negotiated the new 10A in the legislation and that, ostensibly, that\u2019s enough. So even though the river authority might not be happy with the court case being paused or stopped\u2014or whatever word you want to use\u2014even though that decision from the Environment Court was made and there were outcomes of that court case that they liked that are now being overturned by this legislation, the member is saying, \u201CWell, that doesn\u2019t matter, because we have 10A.\u201D Can he confirm that that\u2019s the stated position?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022ee55820ccc1307a76583b86a4f2e2936\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002974\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ee55820ccc1307a76583b86a4f2e2936\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (23:20)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, the member the Hon Rachel Brooking might wish to characterise it in any way that suits her world view, but the Government did engage with the river iwi, we got their feedback, and it\u2019s very clear in clause 10A\u2014which is, by the way, in Part 1, and we\u2019re now on to Part 6\u2014that we have provided for \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ETe Ture Whaimana\u003C/span\u003E and the provisions of that Treaty settlement in the way that they were ascribed in the Resource Management Act (RMA), and there is a general Treaty clause preservation - type clause, which says that we will give \u201Cto the greatest extent possible\u201D equivalent recognition or provision that was available under the RMA in the new system. This has been debated, questioned, and answered at length over the previous, essentially, two days, so I hope that satisfies the member.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u002249d8bc4dc0dc3f580deb3c470199a8a5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002249d8bc4dc0dc3f580deb3c470199a8a5\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (23:21)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I wish to take a call on clause 281, \u201CRegulations\u201D, particularly subclause (1)(f) to (h), which set the fee-setting powers. I want to ask the member in the chair, Simon Court, about\u2014we have had previous discussions about fee setting, but those are about councils who were able to recover costs in an administrative sense; this is a much broader power than that. It\u2019s the broadest fee-setting power that I\u2019ve seen. It is one that, essentially, says \u201CAny excise of public power is something that you can charge for, and Cabinet, via Order in Council, can set any fee.\u201D So there\u2019s no parliamentary check. The first question to the member in the chair is: did he consider making these confirmable instruments, given just how broad they are, and, if they\u2019re not confirmable instruments, what is the check and balance?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002976\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are access-to-justice issues in setting high fees for something which is an excise of public power. We\u2019re expressly contemplating, say, not only the Environment Court fees, which are set by the rules that are agreed by the Minister and the Chief Environment Court Judge, but then we got an answer earlier in this session from the Minister that it is clause 281 which sets entirely the rules of the tribunal. We\u2019re deciding who gets to appear and how much they pay for that in these rules. There was also an earlier answer around how the cost recovery mechanisms were intended to work for the planning tribunals. We understand the policy perspective that the Minister has brought to the Chamber, which is that applicants are not meant to entirely shoulder the burden of those costs, but that\u2019s still going to be determined entirely by the Order in Council mechanism, which sets a fee, and there\u2019s no tension in the system to make sure that those fees are low and that people have the ability to participate in these processes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002977\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe won\u2019t come back through to paragraph (h), so I just want to make sure that the member in the chair is comfortable that these are very broad fees and that the only check on them is that offences are not going to exceed $2,000 and $4,000. Does he, then, intend that to be a ballpark figure for the fees themselves, so the fees are going to be under the offence numbers?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022af7203e3abcfc21f09287e93d48adf5d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002978\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022af7203e3abcfc21f09287e93d48adf5d\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (23:23)\u003C/span\u003E: Going back to my discussion with the member in the chair, Simon Court, about Schedule 11 and the amendments to Schedule 11 at the very last minute\u2014four minutes before we started debating this bill\u2014no, I am not satisfied with his explanation, because we are talking about a court case decision being overturned. So we can put new clause 10A to one side, and I\u2019ve heard his reasoning then\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002979\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022784f4e929aed4ea6a05d1a10add6eccb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c1262be711fd0d3086ecf35e1ae8c677\u0022\u003ERyan Hamilton\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s just paused.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002980\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220779e0d0b77cb811312c25fc034ef1ab\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, it\u2019s just paused\u2014just paused for ever.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002981\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022297bc572c27f45308dffb067ca3e7915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002296167201cd9308e0e229825d8e5b10ef\u0022\u003EDr Hamish Campbell\u003C/span\u003E: No, six years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002982\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002266c839e9683fc457089e4fc5c88a97d6\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: No, clearly the intent that we\u2019ve heard from the member in the chair is that that is the end of it, because the system is going to change everything and enable more pollution, which we\u2019re going to talk about in the next bill. That is a disgrace. People have gone through the court process, and this House, and that Government is once again taking away their rights. The member in the chair is welcome to address that point, which he has not yet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002983\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EGoing to Part 6\u2014and clause 294 is \u201CAmendments to other legislation\u201D, then new  clause 295 is \u201CRepeal of Resource Management Act\u201D, and this does go to section 2, and I\u2019m sure we\u2019ll discuss this in the title and commencement phase. I\u2019m just wondering if the member in the chair sees some irony in the fact that his Government brought back the Resource Management Act and now he\u2019s had to do an amendment, just last week, to repeal it again. That\u2019s one question: does he see the irony there?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a504e94b36e730e087f0a5ffb5859588\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich\u003C/span\u003E: Here we are again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002985\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002261245b086c9fe0a8766c58dc67e70db7\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: And here we are again: three years of delay.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002986\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, another question is on Schedule 8, which is the schedule that, I believe, Tangi Utikere was asking questions about before, which is \u201CEnforcement matters.\u201D It\u2019s a question that goes to more than just this part of the bill, but at clause 20 of the schedule, there is \u201CAdverse publicity orders\u201D, and, at subclause (2), \u201CAn adverse publicity order may require the person to do 1 or more of the following: (a) take any specified action to publicise\u2014(i) the non-compliance:\u201D. Here is the bit that I am interested in: paragraph (ii), \u201Cany effects on the built environment, natural resources or people,\u201D. My question around this is that there is a deletion of \u201Cimpacts on human health or the environment\u201D. That has been changed to \u201Ceffects on the built environment, natural resources or people,\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002987\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think that why the change has happened is because of the definition of \u201Cbuilt environment\u201D, which is entirely non-sensical and unintuitive and will confuse everybody, but it seems to be, again, a slogan. I am here wearing my \u201Cbuilt environment\u201D dress and I am interested in the comments that the member might have\u2014and \u201Cheritage\u201D dress, as well\u2014on why it is that the phrasing has changed to \u201Cbuilt environment\u201D, and if he agrees with me that this is not an intuitive phrasing and will cause a lot of confusion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00221e6600e5dcdc07200afb5ea9ae12ad68\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002988\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221e6600e5dcdc07200afb5ea9ae12ad68\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (23:27)\u003C/span\u003E: The member has raised a number of important questions. I want to try to address a number of questions, including ones which were outstanding, about the fees. The question about the fees from the esteemed chair, I understand, of the Governance and Administration Committee\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002989\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226d6963c0f0f6e245edd5ac65bddacade\u0022\u003EHon Members: \u003C/span\u003ERegs Review.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002990\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022880851ddf604c8763686a84c89796bec\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: \u201CRegs Review\u201D\u2014thank you; the Regulations Review Committee, which I have had the benefit of sitting on for a very limited time following Cyclone Gabrielle, passing emergency legislation. I appreciate how much work goes on in that committee. All fees would have to demonstrably relate to a function that is carried out under the Act. That is the tension. Fees can\u2019t be created in a way that is not able to be related back.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002991\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to address the question that I think maybe Lawrence Xu-Nan had about clause\u00A0281(1)(f)(ii). That, on fees, is very similar to section 360F of the Resource Management Act (RMA). We tried as far as practical to preserve the process parts of the RMA, because we did not intend to try to recreate the whole world of resource management. We tried to keep\u2014what did we say when it comes to infrastructure? Maintain and make the best use of what you\u2019ve got before you start building new. There\u2019s an example of that when it comes to legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002992\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere were some other questions that the member had about Plan Change 1. I want to acknowledge that there may be a number of people who are not satisfied with what the Government has done around Plan Change 1, but I want to make the point that the Environment Court dutifully handled Plan Change 1, the application for plan change; provided a decision, which itself was litigated; and eventually, after what, I understand, was over a decade, Plan Change 1 was finally published. One of the important things when you\u2019re in Government and when you\u2019re at Parliament and you make laws is that you sometimes have to wait for other parts of the system to do their thing before you can react to it. I consider that the Government was patient, was attentive to the decision that came out from the Environment Court, and took deliberate, measured, and sensitive action in response.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002993\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI will explain again: we have deferred some aspects of Plan Change 1 because they did not fit into the new system and they\u2019re going to be very expensive, time-consuming, a massive drag, most administratively in the implementation on the people affected by it. So we parked it, but we have provided for \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ETe Ture Whaimana\u003C/span\u003E to come through into the new system\u2014that\u2019s provided for in legislation explicitly\u2014and for plan makers in the Waikato and the Waip\u0101 region to have regard to Plan Change 1 when they create the new plan under the new system. I would not, again, say that I expect the member to be satisfied, but I hope the explanation is sufficient.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002994\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere was another matter\u2014I\u2019ve got a list here, and forgive me if I have so many lists that I may have missed something. The member identified clause 295, \u201CRepeal of Resource Management Act 1991\u201D. Well, we don\u2019t have to go back too far to when a previous Government developed\u2014with some consultants, over five years or so, led by an esteemed RMA lawyer Tony Randerson, some planners, and other lawyers\u2014a prescription for the Natural and Built Environment Act, which took an entire term of the previous Government to develop and pass, and which I hear, from those tasked with implementing it, it would have been impossible to implement. Rather than trying to panel beat a wreck, rather than trying to refloat a boat that\u2019s got holes punched in it, floated off a reef, we don\u2019t believe in the sunk-cost fallacy on this side of the House. We don\u2019t keep going with things that are not going to work and be inefficient and cost people money. So we stopped Parker\u2019s\u2014the previous Government\u2019s\u2014bill and we repealed it, and we were forced to bring the Resource Management Act back until we brought this into the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u002295df115887f3676351934cde0f696726\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002995\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002295df115887f3676351934cde0f696726\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (23:32)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019ll take the member Simon Court to the planning consent levy, which is at page 221. This is an issue which has been raised with the committee and with the Minister. In his own departmental disclosure statement for this bill prepared by the public servants, it recognised that this is a general levy-setting power which is more similar in nature to a tax than to the other fee-setting powers in the rest of the bill, so he will be able to speak to some of these issues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002996\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFirst question is: how much will that be? And the second question is: it\u2019s a reasonable question for people who are levied with this new charge, this new form of a tax, to ask why they\u2019re paying a fee which is associated with the lodging of a consent that is not reasonably associated with the processing of that consent; that they\u2019re being charged for something which is actually developing the national standards, which benefits all system users, but they are not all system users. This is not a levy which is being charged against everyone who benefits from the making of consents; it is a charge which has been levied against new consents only. Arguably, there are far more system users who are people who have existing consents, who are benefiting from those national plans and the making of those national instruments and regional instruments that the charge is paying for, and yet it is only levied against the much smaller number of new participants.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002997\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also want to ask him specifically about clause 283(4)(b), at the bottom of page 221. You can either prescribe the amount of the levy\u2014so answer the question: how much are we being taxed?\u2014or you can have a methodology. The problem with allowing a regulator to set a methodology is that it will also then be impossible for people who are lodging a consent to know how much they are being charged. You can understand from the regulator\u2019s perspective why they would want to see the methodology. If you are requiring a big consent, you will pay more. If you are this type of consent and it\u2019s complicated, you will pay more. But the problem with that is that, if you end up with a methodology that, say, sets an hourly rate and does not give you any indication of how many hours will be spent on processing your consent, and that will be the fee, that will be the special magic number which is used to determine the levy that you\u2019re paying for the national consenting programme.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002998\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe problem with that is that it becomes completely unknowable and then you\u2019ve got a charge within the system which people can\u2019t predict. This Government has spent a long time in this committee stage trying to tell us that it is trying to be enabling and to change the system to one which allows people to foresee the costs and to make informed decisions about that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520002999\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also want to ask the Minister about subclause (4B). The exemption here\u2014it\u2019s good that there is an exemption under (a)(i) for existing customary rights, they will not pay the levy. But what about those consents that apply to M\u0101ori land? There are already special provisions which apply to not only the rating of M\u0101ori land but the payment for, say, changes in subdivisions associated with M\u0101ori land at the local authority level. Those are set on the basis of a case called \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EMangat\u016B\u003C/span\u003E, which sets out how charges are meant to be set in relation to M\u0101ori land. There is no exemption here for M\u0101ori land consents, though. So how is it that the Order in Council is going to make allowances for the different charges that are appropriate to levy against M\u0101ori land because of the different commercial value of it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00224d2ca2ef67adb648185a1400423308f8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003000\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224d2ca2ef67adb648185a1400423308f8\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (23:36)\u003C/span\u003E: Just in relation to clause 283, I\u2019m advised that it\u2019s not a fee, it\u2019s not cost recovery; it funds some system costs. It is not only for new consents.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022374436c28e81dcb2a37fccaa056e9a7d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022374436c28e81dcb2a37fccaa056e9a7d\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (23:36)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I do want to thank the member in the chair previously, Simon Court, on the responses to Te Here \u0101 Nuku. That\u2019s actually really, really helpful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust looking at the regulation clauses, I want to check with the Minister responsible for RMA Reform regarding new clause 282(1)(e). Again, in clause 282(1), there have been some significant changes in Amendment Paper 709\u2014and this is on page 219. This particular one I was interested in because there are other instances where it talks about fees or waivers when it comes to something that the Environment Court may potentially direct, but what it doesn\u2019t actually specify\u2014I think this is the only instance in this bill\u2014is a waiver for construction management plans as secondary legislation or as a regulation. I wondered\u2014this clause doesn\u2019t seem to be a carry-over, for example\u2014if the Minister wouldn\u2019t give some examples of what a waiver for construction management plans could potentially look like, considering this is a last-minute addition to this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFollowing on\u2014and I think the member Arena Williams had some excellent questions around levies and fees, and, indeed, this is something that we\u2019ve been considering quite closely, as well\u2014one of the things I want to check with the Minister is actually starting with clause 283(1), and this is subclause (2)(a). Again, I\u2019m trying to focus on amendments in Amendment Paper 709. This is a really good example of where there is potentially certain limitations on secondary legislation and regulations, and, in this case, the time frame specified in clause 5 of Schedule 1. I wanted to check with the Minister, as well, that\u2014you know, there are a lot of regulations in this that are supposed to be set as secondary legislation, but we don\u2019t see a lot of limitations on what some of that could potentially look like, or the scope of some of that. I wonder whether there are going to be mechanisms that allow for the review of secondary legislation here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy final question for the time being\u2014and just signalling to you, Mr Chair, I don\u2019t think I have a lot more on Part 6, but I\u2019m going to be moving on to Schedule 11 in the subsequent calls. The last one I want to check at this stage is new clause 283B(1)(ea). This is to do with national standards, fees payable by a person, and when a national standard empowers a local authority to charge for that\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e78d22159a3f720cc58f5c5ebf1bf4e7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: What was that again?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228a1e12c164cbe563cb6d619a2f6ab8af\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229557b76515f5ce7661895e18ffc05bf0\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, sorry, I\u2019ve got it here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f703913bb3e33bbc081d551a1b16cf3d\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s clause 283B(1), new paragraph (ea).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAnd I just want to check, again, the addition for this particular section on what that would mean, and how local authorities would be able to interpret that. And whether this\u2014I can\u2019t see it immediately\u2014if the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind just saying what the limitation it is to charge some of those fees for monitoring.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u002238c5157dcd8539a09a53f909a64b0315\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002238c5157dcd8539a09a53f909a64b0315\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (23:40)\u003C/span\u003E: Very briefly, in relation to the outline\u2014construction management plans, it\u2019s a new word for \u201Coutline plans\u201D. I\u2019m advised it\u2019s a carry-over from the Resource Management Act in relation to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s point around administrative fees in clause 283B(1)(ea), it is as laid out there. It\u2019s \u201Cpayable by a person carrying out a permitted activity for the local authority carrying out its monitoring functions in relation to that activity, if national standards empower the local authority to charge for the monitoring:\u201D\u201D it\u2019s relatively straight forward. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to oversight, I\u2019d encourage the member to join the very hard-working and erstwhile Regulations Review Committee, which I started my parliamentary career on, and it\u2019s a great learning ground for all members.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u002274882d726bc4f9bfbad7c8199a12704b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002274882d726bc4f9bfbad7c8199a12704b\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (23:41)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019m proud to stand as the previous deputy chair of the great Regulations Review Committee in my first term. I do want to go back to\u2014the previous member in the chair widened the scope somewhat of these arguments when we were talking about Part 6 and the repeal of the Resource Management Act, to tell me how terrible the Natural and Built Environment Act was and how it would not be implemented well. I need to get it on record to this Minister that I have talked to people up and down the country, including just on Monday, senior practitioners, but also a whole lot of other people as well, who just do not think that this legislation is workable. And I\u2019ve offered up amendment after amendment to try and make it workable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EEven if you put all the policy things aside, if you say, \u201CIt\u2019s fine to ruin the environment, it\u2019s fine to shift all the focus in the economy from individuals who use things to the general public.\u201D\u2014even if you agree with all of that, it still doesn\u2019t work, and that\u2019s a real problem. I again offer the Minister our time and energy in terms of\u2014we would like to see this legislation work\u2014if it does two things. It\u2019s more efficient and does better for our environment. Two simple things: it\u2019s more efficient and does better for our environment. Two simple things.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, going to some more specific questions, at Schedule 11, I have a published amendment\u2014741 I think, if I can read my handwriting\u2014that is to the bit about the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008. And after section 9, there is an insertion\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002263a9557b3625b57c9be4f4b936803c8a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: What page is that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a15c8d636a232b598495f83b30377e2d\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s at page 552. Sorry, this Schedule 11 is very difficult to work with. At new section 9B, \u201CRegional Spatial plan\u201D, at (2), \u201CWhen adopting or amending a regional spatial plan, the Council must ensure that its provisions are not inconsistent with the purpose of this Act\u201D\u2014meaning the Waitakere Ranges\u2014\u201Cor the objectives.\u201D So rather than not \u201Cinconsistent with\u201D my amendment is to \u201Cmust give effect to\u201D the purpose of that Waitakere Ranges Act. So I wonder if the Minister would consider that change.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAnother published amendment I have on Schedule 11\u2014and this is an important one, relates to section 104, which is at page 563. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b4bd74f2af5199a6f0376cf81d31d258\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Is this one of your amendments?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223556906dbe91b4831ab17855eae1be84\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: I have a published amendment on the Minister\u2019s amendment\u2014well, on the bill as reported back from the Environment Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225836b5e04ba80c4cde3d54947605c19d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Have you got the time stamp?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ca6344eab10d6d1ca6790ec10816c770\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: My amendment is 691 and the page number of the Minister\u2019s amendment is 563. On 563, there is a subheading two-thirds down the page, section 104. This is a very important one, because it goes to the effects that can be considered in the consent application and the time for when those commence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI had an amendment relating to boundaries, so I\u2019ll go through what section 104(1A) of Schedule 11 is. It is an insertion, and this is as amended by the Minister\u2019s amendment, that states, \u201CWhen considering the effects of the district land use activity, a consent authority must disregard any adverse effects arising from the following matters:\u201D\u2014so these are the things that can\u2019t be considered. It\u2019s changed from \u201Cthe external layout of any building on a site if the effects of the external layout remain within the boundaries of the site:\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI had an amendment around the boundaries, but the provision has been subsequently changed so that the list of things that are excluded are \u201C(a) any of the following:\u201D, and it includes something about windows in relation to outdoor living space, \u201Cthe internal fit-out\u201D\u2014and we\u2019ve talked about couches before\u2014\u201Cthe minimum unit size\u201D, \u201Cthe outlook space\u201D, and \u201Clandscaped areas for the construction of a building (except in relation to permeability):\u201D. Permeability is very important, so I\u2019m glad that permeability is excluded from the exception.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question I have here is really around urban design. Does the Minister interpret the section as meaning that there is no urban design, and, if so, given that this section will come into effect within a month of the bill getting its commencement, is that going to require a lot of work from councils to work out how to do that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen, in terms of permeability, this is very important for stormwater, so how does it relate in terms of that? Often, with landscaping, there\u2019ll be a landscaping requirement. You might look at it at face value and say, \u201COh, that\u2019s annoying, considering what I should plant where.\u201D, but, in fact, it might go to permeability. But it might not specify that it goes to permeability, so how are the councils supposed to work out what this permeability relates to? That is the first question, and then the urban design one is the other one on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u002260c0dcc2919893a5148997b0f38e25bd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002260c0dcc2919893a5148997b0f38e25bd\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (23:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, OK.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cd9492650cc8522cb74e3a05cbdbe7ab\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: And the boundaries; why the change to the boundaries?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022155c39d9da3ddfd2f3814641b079dee7\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, yeah, I got the point. This has been covered extensively. There\u2019s already special legislation in place for the Wait\u0101kere Ranges Heritage Area\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fd3bce3ab329209f30f435ad9a626e68\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: I want to change the test.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f8655f35cfcfab7f4f6507266b6bb72c\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I don\u2019t agree with you\u2014you know what it does, and I don\u2019t agree. I think we\u2019ve covered that issue off.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn relation to clause 104 of Schedule 11, there\u2019s actually a Government Amendment Paper on this, another one\u2014some further changes. The member, I think, was talking about fit-out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022592bc698ac1290cf40df9af8a073035f\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Are you talking about 726?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221f34b5cdee53df42666165c12247f4a3\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: 709. It\u2019s the statutory land market officer one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fe08a2f679a304f2d7cf2ff3c7bfc8a5\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: What time?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228e267160299708f99a33c329f3430d8e\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: 709; it\u2019s right at the end, page 9. There are actually a few changes here\u2014so the area of glazing; the presence or absence of balconies. Where it currently says\u2014I\u2019m not quite sure what it says about balconies, but that\u2019s made it clear\u2014outdoor living space, internal layout rather than fit-out, there was a view that fit-out of a building may mean that people would\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c30a5c89ecb2d7a1d7014bcbd46694a7\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: What does \u201Cfit-out\u201D mean?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022239395039ae2575b96b750ffa49af6d0\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, \u201Cfit-out\u201D could go to appliances and furnishings, whereas the thing we\u2019re trying to exclude from the system is layout. I feel like we\u2019re kind of Lawrence Xu-Nan redux, because 90 minutes or so ago we had a long feng shui conversation. So layout\u2019s out; the size of the landscaped areas\u2014the member asked: does this get rid of urban design? I mean, it doesn\u2019t eradicate it, but\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223a7254b241490859306c8c3974151232\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Low bar.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002227a28e54f483b1d6b0180374fbfab590\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the new system moves more towards getting rid of some of these urban design elements. This is the transitional stuff on the way through. The full list of excluded effects is in a different part of the bill, as the member knows. As I understand it, this is on the way through. We want to get these quick wins in place so that you don\u2019t get, as I recounted to the committee of the whole House before, council planning officers saying, \u201CI\u2019m going to deliver your consent because I don\u2019t like the size of your TV and the way it faces the street, or I don\u2019t like\u2014\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002206a97216198674f6957fbb5f6eb5ce44\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Have you got one example of that happening?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002286395fc01056eb6d4397b1539d00597e\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: There are multiple examples of that happening. It happens all over the place. For example, the council in Napier that decided the social housing development in the middle of Napier required Juliet balconies, which meant that the social housing developer built three fewer social homes for people because the cost of building the apartments with Juliet balconies went through the roof. We don\u2019t need councils dictating to social housing suppliers that they need to have Juliet balconies. I didn\u2019t even know what a Juliet balcony was. I know now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229e02e9620c1d3968daa7d4a1076468b4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: What is it? We all want to know now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222a88484c4b78b6307caaa4463dd6f576\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: A Juliet balcony is a tiny little balcony, and they\u2019re pointless because you can\u2019t really stand on them. You can smoke out them, but you can\u2019t really stand on them, and so they\u2019re pointless. They\u2019re decorative. They look nice. Our view is that councils should not be able to dictate that houses, or apartments, actually, should have Juliet balconies. If you want a Juliet balcony, go for your life, but the council shouldn\u2019t be able to tell that you should have one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022818e9a287ccad8d7c29620ab1ae7739a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: That was a very Shakespearean answer, and I think we\u2019re all illuminated. I\u2019m going to go to Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022c030820bd79da245e46ae3115c72cdf5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c030820bd79da245e46ae3115c72cdf5\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (23:51)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform for the previous response on the construction management plan, but my question to the Minister was more on the waiver part. I guess another way of asking that question is, are there actually any existing secondary legislation waiving\u2014what was the term?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223056e26790bc8d2311cf575ea87dc04d\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. It\u2019s the status quo.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e632130dabb5e172de0f3c5fff0d28cd\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: OK, great. Thank you. That\u2019s all I wanted to check. I\u2019m going to move on to schedule 11 now. My broader question to schedule 11, because schedule 11 is quite substantial, is that\u2014I guess this is just a general question. There are a lot of changes to Amendment Paper 709. A lot of them are consequential amendments that have only been picked up in this amendment. I guess my question is, if the Parliamentary Counsel Office etc., found another legislation later on that should have been captured in here, what happens to it? Do they have to bring it under the bill, or are they able to be inserted through other means? Because, presumably, you can only make changes through a primary legislation. I do want to know what happens to consequential amendments if they get picked up later and that weren\u2019t picked up here. That\u2019s my first question, but I have additional questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b03949253a50f8e9f3469216451b124a\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220e4e9e1afe614101e89f8870655b57e9\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, OK.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022762f6ebfbe656c510bb969c023c2b511\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Keep going.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022007600ee5998af29f3572e3478f6831f\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll keep going with just a few more questions. The Minister mentioned before that lawyers who are watching, potentially, there might be things that they might be specifically looking at. I want to check with the Minister on\u2014this is page 520 of Amendment Paper 709\u2014and this is to do with this consequential amendments to the Fast-track Approvals Act, and I\u2019m specifically looking at the new additions in clauses 18 and 20, which is when referral applications or substantive applications are lodged during the transition period. I do find it difficult to follow the particular drafting here, particularly when you\u2019re looking at clauses 18(a) and 20(a), which says that \u201Cthe application must continue to be processed and determined\u2014(a) under this Act as in force immediately before it was amended\u2026(b) in relation to the RMA.\u201D So under the Fast-track Act, it is in force, I\u2019m assuming. If the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind just elaborating on that particular point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMy last call for this particular call is on the Local Government Official Information  and Meetings Act 1987\u2014this is on page 537\u2014which has given a specific definition of \u201Cclimate change\u201D. Now, I went and had a look at the main legislation here\u2014the Local Government Official Information Meeting Act\u2014which has a reference to the previous Resource Management Act (RMA). I guess the question is then, in this particular case, if \u201Cclimate change\u201D has been redefined in that Act, why couldn\u2019t it be defined now in the Planning Act so that other legislation could be referring to the definition under this Act as opposed to inserting his own new definition?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022ebe1185ede19913f450d3d836bcc79f9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ebe1185ede19913f450d3d836bcc79f9\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (23:55)\u003C/span\u003E: The answer is, if you want to change the law, you have to legislate, so yes, they\u2019re consequential amendments, yes. I mean, we\u2019re going to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f61e85a13238517df0f1afff8be34adc\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s not what you\u2019ve done at clause 282A.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a029fe403a0964935be9081312b7b35d\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: In what way?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002265a2308f567c1954f3b677e0549c0e9d\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Can I take a call?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fae5ad5be3d26e2a1a9003b55acc68c7\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: No, please don\u2019t. In relation to page 520, schedule 11, the Fast-track insertions are transitional provisions to apply to the processing of RMA approvals sought via fast track when the system swaps over.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d74513b9bdd8e5a58a0d790ffab72548\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee of the whole House will resume tomorrow at 9 a.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EDebate interrupted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterItalicsCentred\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 11.56 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b8b6b3ac0d5c0201f13862975acaada8\u0022\u003EUrgency\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002233f71f124da4fecc2245cdb91f5194a9\u0022\u003EThursday, 27 August 2026\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ecd3b144b8baed3dbb2f7288fe891b64\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002286d0c2cb119d9e6f850dfd19ea3430e6\u0022\u003EPlanning Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b42c233f7f621a7eda2573643adc9dc1\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003067\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c9baa5af9b1b9e268a827c02db731925\u0022\u003EPart 6 Enforcement and other matters, proposed new clause 295, and Schedules\u00A08\u00A0and 11 (continued)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226bd955700a14446e18c8bdeb3ce5ce1b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Good morning, members. When we suspended last night, the committee was considering the Planning Bill. I remind members that the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill are heavily interrelated and that there are matters that are relevant to both bills. This will be taken into account when assessing relevancy in debate. When the committee suspended, we were debating Part 6, the debate on clauses 217 to 294\u2014\u201CEnforcement and other matters\u201D\u2014including proposed new clause 295, discussing Schedule 8, \u201CEnforcement matters\u201D, and Schedule 11, \u201CAmendments to other legislation\u201D. The question, again, is that Part 6 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u00229af54659cf89b775ae7cc59279dc4786\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229af54659cf89b775ae7cc59279dc4786\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (09:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for outlining just how much there is in this part. We are coming towards the end of our questions, but the Minister in the chair, last night, and I had a back and forth around clause 283A. I believe he said, \u201CWhen you make a law, it has to apply.\u201D The idea here, though, is that the Regulations Review Committee and the departmental disclosure statement have both dealt with the issues which arise from this clause, which is a very wide \u201CHenry\u00A0VIII\u201D provision that provides for regulations to be made which are forward-looking and deliberately drafted in a way which seems to be Parliament saying with its full chest that these regulations will be for matters which may be policy matters which are not contemplated by this bill but by other Acts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy first question to the member in the chair, Simon Court, is: at clause 283A(1)(b), we\u2019ve got this very broad provision which allows \u201Cprovisions of other legislation amended, revoked, or repealed by this bill\u201D not to apply or to continue to apply or to apply as modified. What we\u2019ve got there, essentially\u2014and this is what I want to ask the member: would it be possible for regulations that applied under the Resource Management Act (RMA) to continue to apply for five years? I think that\u2019s correct. So what would the conditions be that the member in the chair would expect those regulations to apply? Would he expect the regulations to apply within the policy intent of this bill? That\u2019s not what it says, but that is a job for all of the parts of the funnel to make sure that the regulations do apply in a way which is consistent. For example, the cessation of Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe agreements are in regulation, and this clause would allow a Cabinet, by Order in Council, to not apply that regulation for a period of five years; so to keep Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe agreements in place and operative, and the ordinary 58UL of the RMA, I think, which provides for those Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe\u2014keep any regulations made under those in place. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also want to ask him about the proposed change of subclause (2A), inserted by Amendment Paper 709, here. There\u2019s a specific limitation that has come in at a later date, and his new amendment makes it clear that the sort of limitation in the regulations will be a shortening of time frames. Is the intention more generally that regulations will narrow in scope with the narrowing of the funnel, or is that just indicative of time frames? What are we to read from that new (2A)?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00227b8a92b5d4430caab220cc169984b63d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227b8a92b5d4430caab220cc169984b63d\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (09:03)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Last night, the Minister was in the chair, and I was asking questions about the provisions that will commence within a month of commencement\u2014so presumably soon; who quite knows soon? We\u2019ll have a debate about commencement shortly, and I will ask some questions about this. But I was asking about section 104 of the Resource Management Act, and this is one that limits what can be taken into account when assessing effects. I asked whether this was the death of urban design. I can\u2019t remember the word that the Minister said, but it did start with \u201Ce\u201D and it wasn\u2019t extinct, but it was close to it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002262f2657925b18c25ddc58057ff624513\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Extinguished.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022426a736163a73fe84cb68c37f7f1cc77\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: I don\u2019t think so. It wasn\u2019t quite extinguished either. But then the conversation somehow moved to TV screens\u2014the placement of TV screens and Juliet balconies. We had quite a discussion about Juliet balconies. I don\u2019t want to relitigate the Shakespearean quotes that were going around the Chamber late last night\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d7432541191b42fd5640030f823bc962\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s good, because we don\u2019t like to go backwards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022baa32257cf1d39a9b1a95166c846fe12\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Ha, ha! But I do have two questions relating to that, and then a third question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo the question on the conversation about the Juliet balconies and where you put the TVs, I had asked\u2014and it was via interjection, but the member was responding\u2014if he had examples of councils having consent conditions about the placement of a TV. He did not respond to that question. I would like an answer to that question, because he then morphed into Juliet balconies. That is obviously a cost on a developer. I understand his policy point there about wanting to be able to do affordable housing, but building a Juliet balcony and the price that goes into that is very different from somebody saying where the placement of a TV is. I have not seen examples of that, so I would like to know if there are examples of that. If that is the mischief that this commencement of the amendment to section 104 of the Resource Management Act is trying to deal with\u2014not just Juliet balconies, but also TV placement. Then I also want to know about this word which wasn\u2019t quite \u201Cextinction\u201D for urban design. If the member in the chair, Simon Court, can comment further on how\u2014it sounded like urban design was still alive, but only just. So if the member in the chair can say how alive that urban design is. Is it as threatened species? That\u2019s what I want to know about urban design.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen another question I asked yesterday that didn\u2019t get answered was back in Schedule 8, rather than Schedule 11, and it was about the adverse publicity orders and this use of \u201Cbuilt environment\u201D and how that is a strange term and how it is to be interpreted. So I\u2019d like the member in the chair to spend some time on that built environment and how it becomes\u2014it\u2019s not intuitive; unintuitive even. Is that such a word? I don\u2019t know. I\u2019ll leave it there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002207b47c854f3f3204115a948f1e1555db\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002207b47c854f3f3204115a948f1e1555db\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:07)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to respond to Arena Williams\u2019 questions about clause 283A(1)(b). Regulations under the Resource Management Act will continue to apply, as provided for in the transition. The question was: are those powers to make regulations? They would need to be consistent with the intent of this bill, and that is a reasonably standard clause in bills of this size. You cannot have regulations beyond the scope of the Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002245e0c0c8ecd07b7630e4944d5235cced\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: This is why executive Government clause go for broke.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022526c85a5d752a1164599c620e4702992\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: With respect to the member\u2019s question about the \u201CHenry VIII\u201D clause, which she continues to amplify from the Opposition benches: why is there a regulation-making power that enables primary legislation to be amended? Well, the transition to the new system would be complex. There\u2019s likely to be unanticipated situations not provided for in transitional provisions. But I get the purpose of the member\u2019s question, which, if I were to paraphrase, would be: what prevents future Governments using this power more broadly than intended? Which any member of Parliament and any of our citizens would be concerned about. This clause provides safeguards, and the changes made by select committee include more specificity around exactly what regulations can do, and include a test for the Minister to be satisfied that the regulations are necessary or desirable for the orderly implementation of this Act or the Natural Environment Act, when they are passed, and are consistent with the purposes of this Act and the Natural Environment Act. In addition, any regulations made under this provision that are still in force five years after the date of Royal assent will be revoked on that date, consistent with other provisions of the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I want to get to the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s questions about transitional matters and around urban design and matters that are in scope and out of scope. During the transitional period, the transitional arrangements go some way towards limiting what matters may be considered internal to a boundary, internal to a premise. The bill further clarifies matters that are not relevant on private property.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe member asked for examples about \u201CAre there any examples where the location of TVs or the provision of a Juliet balcony is part of an assessment?\u201D Well, I have been advised that councils have asked that during consideration of consent conditions, developers respond and modify some of their proposals around indoor arrangements. If the member wants an example, the Christchurch City Council requires indoor storage provisions to be made, and so there are examples where councils are actually requiring developers and property owners who seek to build to give them what councils ask for in terms of indoor arrangements. We\u2019re changing that because it\u2019s important for private property owners to be able to build for the people who they intend to live in the property, not to some council\u2019s or planner\u2019s concept of what good looks like.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022 data-id=\u002253cd74b983c041d5d356c38147926569\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002253cd74b983c041d5d356c38147926569\u0022\u003ECATHERINE WEDD (National\u2014Tukituki) (09:11)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e55b9cd76cb98b2ed68851b26ef7e76d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019ve got a wee way to go just yet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u002291e242a829953adaa6f6b1c6b49d15d8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002291e242a829953adaa6f6b1c6b49d15d8\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (09:11)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a quick, very brief call on the administrative fees part of this bill. I want to ask the member in the chair just a quick follow-up on his question at the last point. On clause 283A, my question was: is it his intention that, by Order in Council, Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe agreements could continue?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00227763c63b95ffa19e127e01471346db74\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227763c63b95ffa19e127e01471346db74\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:11)\u003C/span\u003E: Briefly, no, it is not the Government\u2019s intention that Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe arrangements continue. We\u2019ve been explicit that we do not intend for them to continue and that we have made provision in the legislation for iwi and councils that seek to come to an arrangement to do that through the provisions around iwi participation agreements.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022a16eed24679c5f64b7a8a755f71373d3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a16eed24679c5f64b7a8a755f71373d3\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (09:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. That is helpful. That is helpful to have on the record, but it highlights the problem that we have, which is that this is a very, very broad provision for the Public Service to, essentially, draft orders that are very broad and give a huge amount of discretion, and then, I guess, governance from the pulpit, where a Minister says, \u201CI hope that you will do X or Y.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMoving on to the administrative fees, clause 23B(1)\u2014I\u2019ll do the whole thing at once. Subclause (1)(a) through to (h) are the administrative\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224be8da1eb0042200f855ab6d32984b97\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, what clause was that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b1c5163443bffbc42e21a30cbe377f27\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s at page 224, and I\u2019m on clause 283B. Here\u2019s the thrust of the question: are we sure these are all cost recovery mechanisms, or do they also include charges for participation rights? New clause 283B(1)(ea), for instance\u2014the Minister\u2019s new addition\u2014is to do with fees for monitoring. If we are clear just at this point in the debate that it is meant to be only administrative costs associated with monitoring, that\u2019s quite different than the costs associated with monitoring that are about someone participating and meeting their obligations within legislation. For instance, I\u2019ll put it to the member: can councils charge for iwi participation that is the work associated with hearing the iwi give evidence?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThis is the converse of the question that the member H\u016Bhana Lyndon asked him. I\u2019m not asking whether iwi are resourced to prepare these agreements or to prepare the work; I\u2019m asking whether, in coming to a council meeting and in presenting the work, the work associated with hearing that evidence is also charged to the iwi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223721b0407b09f3cfda430e381b0af3c2\u0022\u003ESimon Court\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223b8fa50f7a52cf1688a6d13e5ef2080a\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS\u003C/span\u003E: OK.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b3c3073a29bc88dc601426585ef7e24\u0022\u003ESimon Court\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m not aware of any\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002223e580a8e199baacd60662030a2482aa\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Just a minute, Simon Court. The member hadn\u2019t finished their call, and so you may find that there are further questions, which I will take into account if the member calls again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022c237858602ec62646fef3a2852efc48a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c237858602ec62646fef3a2852efc48a\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:14)\u003C/span\u003E: Let\u2019s deal with this one, and I\u2019m happy to come back if there are further questions. I\u2019m not aware of any situations\u2014although I stand to be corrected\u2014where submitters providing information as part of a planning process have been charged for providing a submission and appearing at a hearing to give evidence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022d157302be8b0381ae9deaf9c573026e5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d157302be8b0381ae9deaf9c573026e5\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (09:14)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, that\u2019s right. The old schema of fees wouldn\u2019t have allowed that, but the new schema of fees seems to allow that, and so it would be good to have the member just consider whether\u2014you know, if he could say clearly whether it is his intention in future for submitters to be charged, that would be great.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll bring his attention to clause 283B(1)(g), then. With regard to the fees payable for monitoring functions here, is it that any functions are related to the Act? So, now we\u2019re getting much broader, I just want to make sure with him that because we\u2019ve already got this levy in the system which is intended to be a general fee for the management of the whole system, this power in paragraph (g) isn\u2019t about the whole operation of the regional Acts, since we don\u2019t want people to be double-charged for the same thing. Is his expectation that administrative fees and the levy will be held separately, given that one is for the council, one is for the Crown?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll also then bring him very quickly to section 283B(2) and (4) on page 225. Both of these powers work together. Can fees fixed under this recovery system also recover those broader costs\u2014is the question. They\u2019re all going to be instruments that work under the Local Government Act and under this bill, but they\u2019re also not reviewable. There\u2019s no tension in the system to make sure that they are reasonable, other than the people who are then being charged them can\u2019t get out of it\u2014and if they do kick up a fuss, they\u2019re also kicking up a fuss with the exact person who stands in the way between them and their development of their land.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022779842bd2c5d1ff0ba2f92c122d17b32\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022779842bd2c5d1ff0ba2f92c122d17b32\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (09:16)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, going back to this Juliet balcony situation, we heard that if you put TVs over here, there will be no capital investment to an investor, and if you put Juliet balconies over here, there will be a large capital investment to somebody who\u2019s building something. Then the member in the chair said that he\u2019s got examples, and I was asking for examples of TV placement, or even couches. There\u2019s no capital investment in a couch\u2014well, we could argue about what capital it is, I guess.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe member in the chair gave an example of storage. Never in my professional career have I seen consent conditions around TV placements or couches, and so I\u2019m asking the member, again: has he got evidence of consent conditions relating to the placement of residential couches and residential TV screens? That is important, because a lot of the development of these bills has been done via anecdote. That is a real problem, and that is not actually how the practice works.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I\u2019ve got a different question. I\u2019m going to move tack somewhat. In Schedule 11\u2014going back to Schedule 11\u2014there are a lot of changes that came into the bill in Amendment Paper 709, and so that was after the select committee process. We\u2019ve talked about some of them, but they do include quite a lot from page 569 of the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper about certified freshwater plans, limited certified freshwater plans, main duties of farm operators, and more about farm operators, and\u2014I\u2019m now over on page 572\u2014whether the farm\u2019s freshwater farm plan or part of a freshwater farm plan is required to be certified, the date for that certification and its audit. All of these provisions have just been stuck into the transition provisions, and I\u2019m sure we\u2019ll be talking more about farm plans in the natural and built\u2014it\u2019s not the natural and built bill\u2014in this separated out bill. In the Natural Environment Bill, I know we will be talking about farm plans more, but they are also mentioned in this Schedule 11, and it is by amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt does go to the wider fiction that the member in the chair is fixated on, and that is trying to say that you can\u2019t have integrated management. Again, I stand here wearing my dress, which represents an urban environment, and with my earrings here, which are very much about native flora. Of course, these two things go together. So this is an example\u2014one of the many examples\u2014of how ridiculous it is to try and say that there is not integrated management. But anyway, that was a slight digression, but not really. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe point here is: what are all these transitional changes to farm plans that have been introduced into Schedule 11? That is one question. Two, I\u2019m going back to: is there any evidence of any council requiring a residential consent to place a TV in a particular spot or not, or to avoid a particular spot, and could that not have been dealt with by other methods rather than totally changing the law in a month\u2019s time from the legislation\u2019s commencement?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022f2653f7f63fd61827f0f5370b85543db\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f2653f7f63fd61827f0f5370b85543db\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:20)\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, what a wide-ranging series of questions. I\u2019ll do my best to answer the members\u2019 questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ERachel Brooking asked: is there any evidence of consent conditions relating to the location of TVs? Now, resource management practitioners who have advised me and who have provided advice to the Government on the blueprint have described situations\u2014which have been confirmed to me in advice that I\u2019ve received from officials\u2014that these consent conditions aren\u2019t necessarily going to appear, because when a developer approaches a council seeking a consent, the urban designers at council will tell them that \u201CIf you don\u2019t change the layout and make the changes to your design that we\u2019ve asked for, you risk having your application notified.\u201D It\u2019s a form of regulatory stand over. That is why the Government has chosen\u2014and we will be asking Parliament to support this\u2014the removal of the ability to demand those types of changes to the internal layout and arrangements inside a property, because it doesn\u2019t affect anybody outside the property.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI urge the member to consider the intention of that policy change and the benefits it will bring, because we can\u2019t have councils using their powers to threaten notification to a development application in order to insist on design changes based on their vibes and reckons. We\u2019re shifting away from that. It\u2019s a purposeful legislative and cultural change, and I hope the member is able to internalise that and get to grips with it, because it\u2019s going to be part of the new system and the way that the planning system works in the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, let\u2019s come back to the member\u2019s question on fees, and then we\u2019ll get to farm plans. Arena Williams had a question on fees. The question was: how are fees to be made and how can we be confident? Well, I\u2019d just refer the member to clause 283B(2), where there is a fulsome explanation about how fees fixed under this clause must be prescribed and ascertained, and how a local authority may fix different fees for different costs that it incurs, but\u2014let\u2019s be clear\u2014they must all be made within the bounds of the legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll come to Rachel Brooking\u2019s question on farm plans. I wasn\u2019t quite sure what the detail was or the specific question that the member had. I understand that it was more around the changes that had been made and what\u2019s here, compared to what was considered by the Environment Committee. Look, it\u2019s clear that there\u2019s a need for farm plans to do the heavy lifting in the new system when it comes to managing the impacts of primary production, and that\u2019s the Government\u2019s stated intent, but in recognising that farm plans have an important role to play, it\u2019s also important to recognise that different primary land uses have different impacts on the environment. Some are greater than others.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETherefore, we have made changes in order to be clear that where the impacts that farm plans are intended to manage are potentially greater and the risks are potentially greater, then those types of farm plans are going to require a higher level of certification, and for primary operations where the risks are lower, or on a particular property where there are different types of risks, then there is provision for the higher risks to be subject to certification and audit and for the lower risks to be simply subject to management\u2014it will be described in the farm plan how it will be managed\u2014and, of course, audit, compliance monitoring, and enforcement to make sure that those farm plans are actually managing the risks to the environment, if that\u2019s what they\u2019re intended to manage. If those risks are not being managed well, then, obviously, compliance monitoring and enforcement remains available to the regulator.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022bc703ed1dcaf62808ee2ccbd07cbbccd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bc703ed1dcaf62808ee2ccbd07cbbccd\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (09:24)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to respond to some of what the member Simon Court has said to me about \u201Cvibes and reckons\u201D, and his saying to me that I should internalise something about his policy here, but, again, he has given no evidence about consent conditions applying to TVs. So he has, with his \u201Cvibes and reckons\u201D\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022440a125e85954bae9f5d470b7551e4f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a9f6aa9dd74075836dec7767005bddc8\u0022\u003ECameron Luxton\u003C/span\u003E: Is the member not listening?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022560724dc953c8c5e7a358a7a3f44c0cd\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: No, he\u2019s making policy here. I was invited by the member in the chair to agree with his policy position, but it appears that his policy position is based on \u201Cvibes and reckons\u201D, and I want to tell him that any policy that I want to be part of needs to have some evidence behind it. Where is the evidence that councils are requiring conditions about the placement of TVs? I\u2019ll even open that up to accept his part answer, which was about whether or not consents would be notified. Of course, hardly anything is going to get notified under this new regime, but I understand that this is an almost immediate commencement provision. So where are the TVs?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022205c7059d0beabc4d7719b9f486918f6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Can I just say that the Minister did address the question and he did refer to the consultants that had provided support to the Minister, but I\u2019ll ask him to respond again and then we\u2019ll move on from that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220f2884bb12f191d9cbfe8bb05afb6317\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Sure. Thank you for asking him to respond. He has not answered a question about TVs. He has answered the question about the internal layout of a building. That is a structural layout, not the temporary fixtures which are TVs and couches.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00226017eb256b2e31dcef95355837407227\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226017eb256b2e31dcef95355837407227\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:26)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to further clarify. The Government\u2019s intention was that matters internal to a property, whether they be TVs, whether they be storage, the location of the couch, where you plug your kettle in, will no longer be subject to planning provisions and rules and consents. The intention of that is so that people who wish to develop their land and arrange their properties for the benefit of the people who will come and live inside a building can think about what might those people want rather than not have to think about what the council planner might want.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c918759d43056e1f7d49d98064d9d1a3\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: They don\u2019t. That\u2019s a fiction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c076cc42ce03dd92d72e5e16eb8b6304\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: While the member heckling from the Opposition benches claims this is a fiction, I reject that. I have had advice provided to me and I have had it explained to me that in negotiations between resource management practitioners\u2014which I understand the member Rachel Brooking once had some experience in\u2014and during negotiations with councils it is proposed by urban designers that arrangements within a building be made to satisfy that designer. If it is not satisfied, a council will notify a project for public notification and consultation which delays it and exposes\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221acd02820862b0b4afd7281c295a6724\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: What fixtures? Give me an example of the fixtures.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b0f2a9ab6896c1967f0e9c346d2b47d3\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014the developer to enormous cost. While the member asks me for an example, I have provided a description of the situation and the advice provided for me in far more than generic terms. The member might be obsessed by televisions. There are many examples that have been provided to me of the type of shakedown that occurs in discussions between developers, property owners, and local government planners on this matter. That will no longer be subject to a shakedown in the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c96149a439844ecfa86967f9caf5f50d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db64c106a3ea3de45664fc40b8194683\u0022\u003EKatie Nimon\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022685097a41547c42a1480e705de2e3a05\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Catherine Wedd. Oh, sorry\u2014sorry. I\u2019m sorry\u2014I know. Katie Nimon.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c96149a439844ecfa86967f9caf5f50d\u0022 data-id=\u0022c9380a9469d1e39c22d7dced03a64cca\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c96149a439844ecfa86967f9caf5f50d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c9380a9469d1e39c22d7dced03a64cca\u0022\u003EKATIE NIMON (National\u2014Napier) (09:29)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227c346796b901657902a8c1a8a02d143f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry. We are almost there, but not quite.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022902832e7251d61341bf1ef26f3147786\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022902832e7251d61341bf1ef26f3147786\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (09:29)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, acknowledging your indulgence, I\u2019ll just let the member in the chair, Simon Court, know that I\u2019ll race through this so we don\u2019t have a back and forth.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 295\u2014I\u2019m at page 235. The repeal of the Resource Management Act in here is a new thing that the Amendment Paper introduces. We haven\u2019t had any discussion about how that will work and that is different from, say, the Natural and Built Environment Act. Practitioners in this space will be familiar with it. It didn\u2019t do that; it legislated for specific subordinate legislation, so I\u2019m asking the Minister about how this will work. Like, eventually an Order in Council will set the date for the transition. I\u2019m not asking him when; I\u2019m asking him how all of the other planning instruments which are not defined by Schedule 1 continue to exist. The instruments like national policy statements and National Environmental Standards are defined in Schedule 1, but there are plenty of other regulations and rules which are going to be a creature of something. What? What empowers rules, regulations, directions that are made that are not instruments and that are not the regulations which are set out in this bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second question is: the Amendment Paper now allows different regions to operate under different rules at different times. So the thrust of the question, for the member in the chair, is: is it possible for, say, Auckland to be operating under the new rules and under a new plan, which it will\u2014it\u2019s geared up to do that\u2014and Waikato to be operating under the old rules and its old plan for, I think, a period of five years? What will that mean for places like P\u014Dkeno, which are right on the border and many of their services like wastewater, like transport services are shared, and why was that introduced later? There must be a real-world mischief which is being solved here, that different regions can go in different times, that\u2019s been identified along the way. So what is the justification for that, please?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022cf8c5b1769e2f3795b6c2ccfad012106\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cf8c5b1769e2f3795b6c2ccfad012106\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:31)\u003C/span\u003E: There are very clear transition provisions. When it comes to national instruments like national policy statements under the Resource Management Act (RMA), we intend to replace them with a new national policy direction. There\u2019s an illustrative version of that out now for non-statutory consultation; I urge the member Arena Williams to look at it. It\u2019s quite clear that rather than having many different\u2014I think I recall something around 20, maybe 21 pieces of national direction or national instruments under the RMA. We\u2019re going to consolidate it into one piece of national policy direction, and then under each theme in that national policy direction, the member will see that there are standards set out which further particularise how the system is to be implemented. The intended transition is over five years. If it can be brought forward, of course, we would prefer that, but we\u2019ve provided sufficient time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThere was a question around: would councils do things at different times? We have anticipated time frames where the national standard for making spatial plans will be available, followed by regulatory plans, but all of this to be occurring and fully transitioned within five years. If a council is a few months ahead of or behind another council, the Government will choose the transition date through an Order in Council when the Government at that time is satisfied that everything is in place. So those coordination issues, say, between a region like Auckland and a region like Waikato, which have made their own combined plans, should be resolved by the fact that while some provisions in those plans are under the legislation or with regard to standards can come into effect sooner, we\u2019re not waiting for five years for the system to be implemented. We want the benefits to be available within one month of Royal assent. For some of the matters that\u2019d be good to transition immediately, it\u2019s set out in Schedule 11 what those matters are. I fully expect that by the time the Government says a transition is complete, we\u2019re ready to go and turn on the new system, then all the new plans will come into effect fully at the same time. I hope that addresses the member\u2019s question fully.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b1e051b8dcff1f8ef836f22d0d920de8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s tabled amendments to the amendments to Part 6 set out on Amendment Paper 709 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments to the amendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 67, Noes 55.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223088b72ead0f049121e74514e53250a4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 6 set out on Amendment Paper 709 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 67, Noes 55.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cb7a918bc7849a6ec2f1bb89d7e0b8ef\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s amendment to clause 283A set out on Amendment Paper 733 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 55, Noes 67.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Part 6 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 6 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 55, Noes 67.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228901ba6fc021ee6eb7a74c4b9181b30a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: We move on to Schedule 1. The question is that the Minister\u2019s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709 to Schedule 1 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 67, Noes 55.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226b4436082bf846a9a5afcd5daa2ad81d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 709 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments as amended \u003C/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003Ebe agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 55, Noes 67.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225301fbb26cb1e2ca7cb5c877cabb09e7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s amendments to clauses 5(7), 12C, 13, 17, 18A, 21, 21A, 25A, and 27 of Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 733 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s remaining amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 733 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220f5dc4fa54493ca1734bcddaeb5d6fd3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 742 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228c961ed17e0759c14d0a3ed93cf6847a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Tamatha Paul\u2019s amendment to Schedule 1 deleting clauses 21, 21A, and 21B is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETamatha Paul\u2019s amendment to Schedule 1 deleting clauses 21, 21A, and 21B is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETamatha Paul\u2019s amendment to Schedule 1 replacing clauses 21(2) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOriini Kaipara\u2019s tabled amendments to Schedule 1, deleting clause 21(2), replacing clause 21A, and inserting new clause 21C, are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOriini Kaipara\u2019s tabled amendment to Schedule 1 inserting new clause 24A is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOriini Kaipara\u2019s tabled amendment to Schedule 1 deleting clause 37 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 1 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 1 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221a31535fee82c3b651fcc45c09f8b8f0\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019ll move to Schedule 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709 inserting clause 6(1)(n) in Schedule 2 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022 data-id=\u0022db83285cb9fa49a1e9a81b4abd1c1854\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022db83285cb9fa49a1e9a81b4abd1c1854\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS (Green) (09:45)\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. I seek leave to correct the vote. Earlier, I voted for T\u0101kuta Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a58d6e7f884fda3e1ea2a31fa42147c2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Just explain?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bc4fa66587e28015db1d163f9509b9bd\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: T\u0101kuta Ferris had no vote for all the votes that I took for\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d2e1aa7fece20203fb5da9ce6cd93a12\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: So, for the entire Part 6 that we\u2019re voting on, and the schedules, there is no vote from T\u0101kuta Ferris?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022abec4be28b3c7e34c6f175b0c52fd506\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002220e3382c6396a43cce57c11b17d27182\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: OK. We\u2019ll record that and adjust the results accordingly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022300b04c76f2fdf69ab27c1df6aa73aa5\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b4e612e8fba36d5666c50a4c1a87dadb\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003EWe should start again!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002285360049e601da594a0cf14225a82890\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Pardon?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227d01dc4cd4a567b1d3bf97872fc355c5\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003ELet\u2019s start again to be clear.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022092e77ffd3a0eddd9ce1ad9d9ffeccdd\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Let\u2019s not. The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 709 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022332d8c2ffe483da5a291d8365a3696df\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Lan Pham\u2019s amendment to clause 6 of Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 731 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Lan Pham\u2019s amendments to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 729 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 2 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a4874034822b85b3de24a6fde01f129e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: We move to Schedule 3.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 709 amending clauses 5, 15, 16, 17, and 20 of Schedule 3 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments to the amendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228b1df94f19c8bdae9817c6d4477294c1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter\u2019s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709 amending clause 24(2) of Schedule 3 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f405c9190a91e43f99f245d09ff556f5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter\u2019s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709 deleting clause 26(2) of Schedule 3 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226094206a746d052df4b334589523c714\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Schedule 3 set out on Amendment Paper 709 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f89bf2446befa139801dcb1a5e300faa\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Tamatha Paul\u2019s amendment to Schedule 3 inserting clause 3(c) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u2019s amendment to clause 11(2)(b) of Schedule 3 set out on Amendment Paper 727 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Lan Pham\u2019s remaining amendment to clause 11 of Schedule 3 set out on Amendment Paper 727 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f55de80a55eeb8aab27d56f0b83561a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Lan Pham\u2019s amendment to clause 18 of Schedule 3 set out on Amendment Paper 721 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eff61a3d757a8981826db7fa493a9afb\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Tamatha Paul\u2019s tabled amendment to Schedule 3 inserting clause 26(2)(d) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220524eb6d903b27cd83fcb60f93176fc0\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Lan Pham\u2019s amendments to clause 32 of Schedule 3 set out on Amendment Paper 729 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ab80fd779b5c499a9973d1f2ddeaf039\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Lan Pham\u2019s amendment to clause 51 of Schedule 3 set out on Amendment Paper 679 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendment deleting Part 4 of Schedule 3 set out on Amendment Paper 667 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOriini Kaipara\u2019s tabled amendment deleting Part 4 of Schedule 3 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Steve Abel\u2019s tabled amendment to Schedule 3 clause 62 relating to the Wait\u0101kere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228b17a456fefbcdf9ea1dfdd1d47bc11c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Oriini Kaipara\u2019s tabled amendment to Schedule 3 inserting new clause 63A is out of order as relying on an amendment to Part 1 that was lodged after time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOriini Kaipara\u2019s tabled amendment to Schedule 3 inserting new clause 63B is out of order as relying on an amendment to Part 1 that was lodged after time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Steve Abel\u2019s tabled amendment to Schedule 3 clause 67 inserting new paragraph (f) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 3 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 3 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a59491cb3dd2f3be8d2cc3eefb5994b1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to Schedule 4.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter\u2019s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709 replacing clause 2 of Schedule 4 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222564eab27d5f78209ca0798e017a3b45\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter\u2019s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709 deleting clause 5 of Schedule 4 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022df62e66e89fa143eb8043ad44989178f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Schedule 4 set out on Amendment Paper 709 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 4 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 4 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022822609c34c46df7060b9fa556364a3a1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: We move now to Schedule 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Schedule 5 set out on Amendment Paper 709 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments to be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 5 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 5 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222c3a0fb6bd781e53366a3289769c39aa\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: We move to Schedule 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Schedule 6 set out on Amendment Paper 709 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments to be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022883bb9eed811cec33c475e487483a62b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Oriini Kaipara\u2019s tabled amendment to Schedule 6, clause 2(2) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022780b0f240e5ff86e749af9de2e9eb758\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Oriini Kaipara\u2019s tabled amendment to Schedule 6 deleting clause 6(3) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 6 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 6 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a3b2660f0720c19afb3adf1e012acce0\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: We now come to Schedule 7.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Schedule 7 set out on Amendment Paper 709 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments to be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a78c373f58a563ae014081aae47bbe76\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Oriini Kaipara\u2019s tabled amendment to Schedule 7 inserting new clause 39A is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 7 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 7 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c3231b918c75d33109a4aa0e6c9b385f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Schedule 8 set out on Amendment Paper 709 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments to be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 8 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 8 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e9e470fb045635c689f75cf65a5ec554\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: We come now to Schedule 9. The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Schedule 9 set out on Amendment Paper 709 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022794c280f42db28367e795e4bb0f54036\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Lan Pham\u2019s amendment to clause 76A of Schedule 9 set out on Amendment Paper 729 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 9 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 9 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a50f5639acf45e4aba579776db460c1b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: We move to Schedule 10. The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Schedule 10 set out on Amendment Paper 709 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 10 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 10 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224f586361f30d9f86662bfc1f2031422a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: We move to Schedule 10A.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Hon Phil Twyford\u2019s tabled amendment to the Minister\u2019s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709 to insert new clause 4A into proposed new Schedule 10A be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment \u003C/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003Eto the amendment to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022454a3e65ba4a250e83131da9f5f933b7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709 inserting new Schedule 10A be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de0b262b226f5fe7c50911139f478e59\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: We move to Schedule 11. The question is that the Minister\u2019s tabled amendment to the Minister\u2019s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 709 relating to Schedule 11 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment to the amendments to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendments to the amendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022337fd679ea102ed69f53235d573725df\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s tabled amendments, as amended, to Amendment Paper 709 to Schedule 11 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat amendments, as amended, to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments, as amended, to the amendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222d86c5d5595c6f305511f178eecb0dc3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 709 amending Part 1 of Schedule 11 to delete the amendment to Schedule 12 of the Resource Management Act 1991 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709 amending Schedule 11 to delete paragraphs (ba) and (bb) of section 18(4) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709 amending Part 1 of Schedule 11 to delete the amendment relating to the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224beeda87f4a108a9e36a8324bf4a9970\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 709 amending Part 2 of Schedule 11 to delete the amendment to clause 7(3) of Schedule 4 and deleting proposed Part 2A of Schedule 11 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments to the amendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b6969983b034e9654e25847565cb7013\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 709 amending Part 1 of Schedule 11 to delete the amendment to Schedule 12 of the Resource Management Act 1991 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee of the whole House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 709 amending Part 2 of Schedule 11 to delete the amendments to section 92, 95A, and 95B of the Resource Management Act 1991 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments to the amendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221214fbfcbbd0d0db9eaf94b4c7396db5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 709 amending Part 2 of Schedule 11 to delete the amendments to section 104C, 104D, 108AA, and 113 of the Resource Management Act 1991 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments to the amendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002296e3aec0f91a52ca12898db0cdb0cd04\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Schedule 11 set out on Amendment Paper 709 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002299c398483b93a4671db1debb2b2d4be3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s amendment to the Part 2 heading in Schedule 11 set out on Amendment Paper 733 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee of the whole House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s remaining amendments to Schedule 11 set out on Amendment Paper 733 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a2006dd5b6ce64cb7ffb15fda395305c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendments to Part 1 of Schedule 11 set out on Amendment Paper 741 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003530\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002273d8aeb747f66028e43bbf55b3024007\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendment to Part 2 of Schedule 11 set out on Amendment Paper 691 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee of the whole House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe questions is that Lan Pham\u2019s amendment to Part 4 of Schedule 11 set out on Amendment Paper 680 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e797c161234f36253e7ca7fbc5231c6a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Tamatha Paul\u2019s amendment to Parts 1 and 4 of Schedule 11 deleting the amendments to the M\u0101ori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee of the whole House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETamatha Paul\u2019s amendment to Part 4 of Schedule 11 deleting the amendment to section 89(3) of the Urban Development Act 2020 is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 11 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 11 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 12 be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 12 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00226ef4aa03ee5d82e8c9e16c706a3b5f24\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022172c4cfedb47fb4d810f17de46a8b653\u0022\u003EClauses 1 and 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e8cf9f0ea3d18abb35d208ba06d1b369\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to our final debate. This is on clauses 1 and 2, \u201CTitle\u201D and \u201CCommencement\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022ff42868a94f1fe40c0071b61848a65e6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ff42868a94f1fe40c0071b61848a65e6\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (10:29)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to go first to \u201CCommencement\u201D, and then I\u2019ll, at some point, talk about the \u201CTitle\u201D. It\u2019s very important to note that there have been a number of changes since the Environment Committee looked at this bill, and so it would, of course, as always, be useful for the member in chair, Simon Court, to explain what those changes are and why they\u2019ve happened; that\u2019s one question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen I want to look, first, at clause 2(1A), and that is the list of \u201CThe following provisions come into force 1 month after Royal assent:\u201D, and as we were discussing in the last debate, one month after Royal assent is very soon, presumably. It\u2019s going to be incredibly close to the election. Generally, big policy changes aren\u2019t made so close to an election. Particularly, we were in the last debate asking: why were councils ready to make these changes so quickly? The member in the chair, Simon Court, told me that the policy decision seemed to be based on vibes. I asked for evidence about any consents around fixtures; no evidence was given. So this is policy based on vibes, based on anecdote, and it\u2019s going to come into effect in a month\u2019s time from the commencement, when all the other provisions won\u2019t be commencing\u2014just this one that\u2019s going to affect planning behaviour very quickly. From a policy point of view, I do not disagree when the member and the Minister in the chair talk about expensive structural changes such as Juliet balconies, but I was asking questions about fixtures and I have not yet got them, so this is based on vibes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGiven the proximity to the election, I would suggest\u2014and I don\u2019t have a tabled amendment to do this, but I\u2019ll put it here that, in fact, the following provision should come into force six months after Royal assent. That would give some time to deal with the election that is coming on just 7 November. We are at the end of August; we stop being in Parliament from 24 September. This bill will not have its third reading this week, so we know that that Royal assent cannot happen in the next month, but it could be happening in that month after the next month\u2014so into the end of October at the earliest, or into November. So this is very proximate to the election. Let\u2019s move it a bit from the election. That is one question: will the member in the chair consider that change?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen we have, at subclause (2), \u201CThe following provisions come into force on a date or dates set by Order in Council:\u201D, and there are a lot of different provisions here until we get to proposed new subclause (3), which is that \u201CAny part of this Act that has not come into force 4 years after Royal assent comes into force then.\u201D So we\u2019ve got the backstop of four years at (3); that\u2019s fine, and we\u2019ve got these first provisions coming online at the election, but then we\u2019ve got this whole set of significant changes that come into force on dates set by Order in Council. So what that is is vague. It is uncertain. We do not know when all of these different changes will be made. So my question to the member in the Chair about those provisions\u2014and I accept that there are reasons for why you commence different provisions by Order in Council, but if he can give us some answer as to why those provisions are chosen to be by Order in Council, noting that again we have this big amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen, going to proposed new subclause (2C), which is\u2014and he didn\u2019t answer my question before about irony\u2014the repeal of the Resource Management Act, because, of course, this Government brought back the Resource Management Act and then it\u2019s going to get rid of it again, but we don\u2019t know when because it\u2019s going to be enforced on a date set by an Order in Council. So those are my questions on commencement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00225212a9813e4e173fca392dfaa419e32a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225212a9813e4e173fca392dfaa419e32a\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (10:34)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank the member for her questions. In answer to the question of what\u2019s changed through this amendment, we\u2019ve added a backstop commencement date of four years, and we\u2019ve added a new subclause (2AA), which is available for the member to consider. It\u2019s to provide for commencement provisions, essentially, for the land market officer. So those are the changes that this amendment makes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe member asked a question about commencement: why commence it one month after Royal assent? Why not wait for an election and then see what happens? Well, I need to inform the member that New Zealanders don\u2019t expect reform and progress to be delayed by an election. They want action, and they want the benefits of this reform as soon as possible.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe member asked, \u201CWell, isn\u2019t there a lot of work to do, and, you know, are you confident?\u201D Well, Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport staff have been spending a lot of time preparing for transitional consenting to assist councils and applicants. Of course there is much work to do, but that\u2019s what this Government is up for and that\u2019s what officials are up for and that\u2019s what council representatives I\u2019ve spoken to have told me they\u2019re up for. They want to get on with it. The member H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s shaking her head\u2014she disagrees. She\u2019d rather retain the status quo, perhaps. That\u2019s not what New Zealanders want.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve answered the question about Order in Council. The system will be turned on by Order in Council, but there is provision, there is some flexibility. Just to come back to an answer that I gave the member Arena Williams in response to her question in a previous part of the debate around what if the Waikato\u2019s ready but Auckland\u2019s not and vice versa, there is some flexibility for a region by region transition in exceptional circumstances so that regions that are ready are not unnecessarily delayed by one or two incomplete plans elsewhere. So I\u2019m happy to clarify that, and, further, happy to clarify my answer to a question in the previous debate that the bills provide a backstop date of four years, not five. Thank you, Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u00220958bfc188264fef78010a693f1e2709\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003564\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220958bfc188264fef78010a693f1e2709\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (10:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. This is just a call about the statutory officer, the competitive land markets officer, and it\u2019s an amendment that the Minister made while the committee stage was open to the commencement of this provision. Given that it\u2019s a new provision, I just want to make sure with the member in the chair, Simon Court, that we understand the timing of that, because we\u2019ve heard from the Minister over and over again that we\u2019ll be building the plane as we are flying it. The Opposition has some enthusiasm for this policy, so this is not a general policy critique; this is a question about when these things will come into force.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFirstly, the the Hon Dr Duncan Webb is preparing right now an amendment which I would like the member to consider, that would mean that the general Order in Council and regulatory provision which allows a date to be set in future for the statutory officer to commence would be no later than 12 months. It was the 12 months that was discussed back and forth with the Minister around the operative provisions of the statutory land officer. I have been waiting patiently to take this call in clause 2. That is the best way to effect that policy change, to make sure that no more than 12 months in future\u2014and as the Minister said, you might want to do that in Auckland only, but you could do that in Auckland only if you had a statutory officer which came into effect within no more than 12 months and then it was operative, because it can decide how it\u2019s operative in Auckland only. But that is critically important to the policy, that we don\u2019t see an unnecessary delay.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAt the moment, his provision, I think, allows for five years for the statutory officer to come into effect as the maximum date. I think that is the wrong time period. When you look at the effect of 188A, the statutory officer is meant to have as much scope as possible for that new office to determine how and when it applies, but the problem is that we\u2019ve allowed the making of regulations to determine when those powers become operative. So we\u2019ve created, I think, what is an accidental tension in the system where the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT) and the statutory officer will at times be deliberately intentioned\u2014that is Parliament\u2019s intent, that the statutory officer will at times be at odds with MCERT, but MCERT has the power to turn them on. We want to make sure that Parliament is clear here that the statutory officer is meant to be in place when the regime is, effectively, in effect, and it\u2019s most important in Auckland.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo could the member just address that point about\u2014there are two changes that the Minister made, one at 7.26; one at 5.40, around that\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002217206e40384c2e7f1b8ec30628956bad\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Time-wise\u2014she\u2019s talking about times.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002203ce4e59a062a507eb59ab8cbd5f1097\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS\u003C/span\u003E: Just time-wise, for when the statutory officer will come into effect. I want him to turn his mind to whether there should be a maximum. We\u2019ve got the amendment now, and I will bring him a copy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c0e8333c58025afe279fcba73c7adf63\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Camilla Belich. Sorry, Camilla was trying to call earlier.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u00226273c819fbfd491a7fe8c486b444429c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003571\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226273c819fbfd491a7fe8c486b444429c\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (10:40)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair, and good to be able to take a call on the commencement. I wondered if the member would just elaborate a wee bit. This is following on from the answers given to my colleague Rachel Brooking. When will the Act in its entirety, as set out in clause 2(2)(a) to (j), come into effect? What is the member proposing in terms of the details of the Order in Council? Can he tell us now the dates that all of those different provisions will come into effect? If he can\u2019t tell us the date when all those provisions can come into effect, can he tell us the time frame for when the Order in Council, which is set out in these commencement provisions as secondary legislation, will be made available and a time frame for that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think the issue around the sensitivity of commencement for this particular bill is that we\u2019re in a situation now where we\u2019re a few weeks out from the election. We were here three years ago, and we suffered a significant amount of criticism as the Government of the time for making changes to the Resource Management Act prior to the election\u2014a significant amount of unhelpful rhetoric saying that they would be better and how terrible it was that the Government was changing it so close to the election. Look, here we are, three years later, and this Government has brought back the Resource Management Act. Every damaging thing that has come out of every mouth of a member from the other side of this House saying how bad the Resource Management Act is is in force today because of the actions of this Government. That is the reason that these improvements could not be made to the Resource Management Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think, probably, with the benefit of reflection, when we read the member\u2019s memoirs at the time that he leaves Parliament, I\u2019m not sure that he or Minister Bishop will in time agree with the approach that they\u2019ve taken here, because as New Zealanders, we all agree that the Resource Management Act needs to change. We changed it and this Government brought it back. Now we\u2019re in the frustrating position of looking at this commencement clause and not actually knowing the exact dates that these alleged improvements\u2014some of them we think will be improvements and some of them we disagree with. My colleagues have put very, very well-thought-out, articulate amendments as to why those changes need to be made. But we don\u2019t have clarity on that. I appreciate that there\u2019s a backstop\u2014I\u2019ve understood that\u2014but I think that it would be good if the member could answer those two questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other thing I want to understand, and I know this has come through the select committee process, is when I read this commencement clause, it appears to me that some of the changes are less clear in the new drafting in terms of the exceptions and how they are drafted. So we have 2(1), and it just has a full stop. This Act will come into force the day after Royal assent with some exceptions, full stop. Then we have to look at a separate provision. Now, normally we would have\u2014this might be a bit detailed for the member\u2014a colon, a semicolon, an \u201Cand\u201D, some kind of joining word that actually links the changes to the commencement date with the overall duty. So why has that change been made? Why is it less clear than it was prior to coming back? Is the Minister proposing to clarify that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is important, because when these changes come into effect is when New Zealanders will, if there is any benefit to this legislation, as the member has purported to articulate, will actually have an effect. So, in a way, it\u2019s the most important clause. There\u2019s no clarity in it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00224829910014db96d3051434e5d430b748\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224829910014db96d3051434e5d430b748\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (10:44)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I know that my colleague Arena Williams is very keen to take a call as well on the amendment that she has now tabled, and hopefully the member in the chair has seen that amendment as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo I want to move on, backwards, up to clause 1, which is the title. We\u2019ve just heard a bit of back and forth about the impending election. The member in the chair has said, \u201COh, well, we\u2019re allowed to make policy to continue so close to the election.\u201D I remind the member that that is not what the now Government members were saying this time in the cycle three years ago.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe point that the member Camilla Belich was just making about the Resource Management Act and it now needing to be repealed again, and that we are here with this significant legislation where Government Ministers have not taken on board any of the Opposition\u2019s concerns about it, when we know that when we win the election that it will be changed, that they are blustering on and could have taken the Natural and Built Environment Act and the Spatial Planning Act, they could have taken those Acts and made amendments to them. But, no, they chose to spend three years doing their own version and saying that they are going to commence right on the election. So I think that a better title for this Act than the Planning Act is \u201CThis is a Vanity Project.\u201D [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen another one\u2014I heard some disdain from the Government members, who have not been sitting in this House for quite as long as I have or the member in the chair, who have rehashed these arguments over and over again. We\u2019ve been discussing urban design. This is important because the urban design provisions come into force just around the election. We had some word that I can\u2019t now recall that the Minister said it wasn\u2019t quite extinction, but it was on the way to extinction of urban design. So another title suggestion could be that this Act is the \u201CExtinguishing of Urban Design Act 2025\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen, of course, we have a whole lot of this bill that is about what the member in the chair would say is the enjoyment of private property rights and the move from where private owners\u2014people who enjoy that private property\u2014have had to sometimes pay for resource consents and the like, that all of that economic activity is going to move on to the public. The member in the chair and the Minister as well have talked a lot about how they want to really enable everything. They talk in ways as if there will be no planning\u2014that this is really the death of planning\u2014because there\u2019s going to be so much national direction that is undertaken by the Minister that then councils at that local level, they\u2019re not allowed to look at place. I\u2019ve put up a whole lot of amendments to say, \u201COK, well, what about that local place? What about that localism that Government members campaigned on three years ago that is all gone now?\u201D So my suggestion is that this Act is the \u201CAnti-planning Act 2025\u201D, because I think that is what these Government members are trying to do. They\u2019re trying to say, \u201CWe don\u2019t have to have planning at the local level. Don\u2019t worry everyone, the Minister will decide.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00228cdbf6e25f1081a354b5dc18f90f1863\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228cdbf6e25f1081a354b5dc18f90f1863\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (10:49)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair, with your indulgence, I might need a little longer than five minutes to respond to a number of questions. Starting with the question from the member Camilla Belich in relation to the member Arena Williams\u2019 tabled amendment, asking why the statutory officer for competitive urban land markets could not be set up in 12 months. Well, I would expect that the Government will move very quickly to establish the statutory officer because we all have an interest in ensuring that there are competitive urban land markets, that land is available and affordable. That is one of the stated goals of this Government. We\u2019ll be moving very quickly, but an Order in Council allows for it to be turned on as soon as ready. So it\u2019s also important, because this is a new concept, that we get it right. I hope the member understands that getting it right is just as important as moving fast, but I absolutely accept the urgency of establishing the office and the officer and getting that office focused on making sure more land is available and it\u2019s affordable and it\u2019s where people want to live and develop. So we share that goal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll just come to the second question, which was from the member Camilla Belich, about a specified transition date. The member, and, I think, the Hon Rachel Brooking also, complained that this Government had had to resurrect the Resource Management Act (RMA). There are some difficult choices in life. One was between the previous Government\u2019s Natural and Built Environment Act or bringing back the RMA, and we chose the least of those two poor options, the least worst\u2014bringing back the RMA. But I would offer the members in the Opposition an opportunity: if they wish to be rid of the RMA once and for all, and getting rid of it faster, they could support the Government by voting for this legislation. They could call for a vote right now, and we could get the Planning Bill passed through committee stage right now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, responding to Camilla Belich\u2019s further questions: a specified transition date will be set once all plans are notified. It\u2019s expected to be early 2030, and the date is in order for councils to allow for plans to be developed before the switch-over, because switching on without plans ready to go would cause chaos. We have taken a deliberate and considered approach to mapping out the transition.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow I want to go into some of the transition details, in responding to questions from members from earlier. The \u201CCommencement\u201D clause provisions required to stand up the system will commence on Royal assent, as set out in the clause\u2014for example, national instrument provision, system performance, regional spatial plans, and the Environment Court. That is because people who are participants in the system can get on and get started and we can start to see and realise some of the early benefits of the legislation immediately. One month after Royal assent, the changes to the RMA and fast-track provisions will take effect, and the Planning Tribunal will be switched on as soon as it is set up and ready, via a subsequent Order in Council. Then the focus will turn on to the features and matters set out in Schedule 1, clause 15. We\u2019re working towards a specified transition date: 39 months is set out; four years as a backstop. The bills do provide that backstop date: four years from Royal assent to commence everything. I\u2019m just making sure that I clarify that with respect to an answer I gave previously.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI just want to come to the member Rachel Brooking\u2019s description of the \u201CTitle\u201D clause and some proposed amendments to it. I\u2019m disappointed in the member, because it is quite clear from reading the Planning Bill that it provides a framework for the enjoyment of land and sets out the goals that this Government intends the legislation to deliver through the framework in the bill. It provides many of the same features and processes, literally cut and paste, from the RMA that are non-controversial, so I would expect that a member with such extensive background as an RMA practitioner would offer a more constructive suggestion about the title.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022 data-id=\u002280ca92007318af69bbc91ae8a592f92b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002280ca92007318af69bbc91ae8a592f92b\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON (Green) (10:54)\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, kia ora, Mr Chair. I wanted to speak to the issue of commencement and coming from a rural perspective where, you know, the dollar in council is stretched as it is, and in hap\u016B and iwi it\u2019s non-existent to participate in these processes. The fear or the concern, I guess, in terms of commencement being straight after Royal assent is that the system is not ready and councils are going to have to have a quickening of readiness to give effect to this process that will be stood up at haste while still trying to grapple with the day to day of what they continue to work through. As tangata whenua, we\u2019ll be left behind once again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETalking from a Tai Tokerau perspective, knowing that our regional spatial plans have only just started a conversation and we\u2019ve only just gotten a working group together to try and bring councils together from a planning approach, there are significant worries within the North in terms of the speed by which they will be expected to stand up for this new machinery.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s my questioning to the Minister in terms of the haste, because we\u2019ve heard from the Minister this morning, just now, saying, you know, \u201CWe have to move at pace, but it has to be done well.\u201D So it\u2019s all in the implementation, really. I signal from the North\u2014we\u2019ve got our joint committee across councils, and they asked, \u201CHey, we need some national tools, a digital platform that brings together all of the information and helps us at a national level to usher in these changes and map out the system.\u201D That\u2019s been happening at a regional and local level for a little bit, where we\u2019ve got our own templates and tools, but where is something that can bring us together, some glue in the planning space?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo that\u2019s a question around: are we ready enough for the commencement at haste, because we\u2019re moving at pace; this is a fast-track planning bill that\u2019s coming into effect very quickly, but also are the voices of tangata whenua being forgotten? In questioning the member in the chair, Simon Court, but also the Minister responsible for RMA Reform in terms of resource and support and provision for tangata whenua voice\u2014because in readiness for this bill to come into effect, tangata whenua aren\u2019t even at the table yet; council are talking to themselves. So the idea that somehow we\u2019re going to be ready or we need to be ready at haste because of the commencement coming on so quickly forgets its Treaty partner, and it forgets the fact that not all councils are designed or resourced at the same level as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo that\u2019s a p\u0101tai in terms of: why don\u2019t we have commencement, say, 30 June 2027\u2014give it a bit of time. Let\u2019s get the system sorted. Let\u2019s do it well but also do it in a timely fashion, and I don\u2019t think that 30 June 2027 is too far away. I just think that gives a little bit more breathing space for our officials, for councils, and for, finally, tangata whenua to be acknowledged. Apparently, in the bill, councils and Crown are meant to acknowledge them because it\u2019s in the bill, but there\u2019s no provision, really, for us because we\u2019re just taken into account. That doesn\u2019t even qualify a conversation, sometimes; it can just be the reading of our Treaty settlements or statutory acknowledgments, \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Ete mea, te mea.\u003C/span\u003E [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003Eetc., etc.\u003C/span\u003E] So that\u2019s a genuine question coming from regional, provincial New Zealand. Not all councils are the same. If we want to do it well, let\u2019s push it out a little bit. I\u2019m not saying three years; I\u2019m saying just till 30 June 2027, and let\u2019s get it going. Let\u2019s set the system up appropriately, and as our Northland council\u2019s joint management committee, who are trying to figure out how to come into this space\u2014are there national tools and platforms that are going to be established to help us, for consistency and for \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Emahi tahi\u003C/span\u003E, so we can learn and we can have a system that speaks to us all, no matter where we exist.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI recognise T\u0101maki-makau-rau Auckland is special and different. They\u2019re massive compared to us in the North, but, you know, in provincial New Zealand we need to have the safeguards in place in local government to be able to put bills such as this into place at haste\u2014because it\u2019s quickening; it\u2019s quick\u2014and, of course, we\u2019re forgetting tangata whenua once again. Kia ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002266045515c16811b589eb225d966f2e88\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002266045515c16811b589eb225d966f2e88\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (10:59)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, respectfully to the member H\u016Bhana Lyndon, who has raised a number of times concerns around participation, consultation, and involvement of M\u0101ori in the functions and processes set out in the Planning Bill, the Government is very clear that we intend to provide for M\u0101ori interests through M\u0101ori participation in the development of national instruments, regional spatial plans, and, subsequently, land use plans, through the identification and protection of sites of significance to M\u0101ori, including \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Ew\u0101hi tapu\u003C/span\u003E, water bodies, sites in or on the coastal marine area, and enabling the development\u2014so important\u2014and protection of identified M\u0101ori land. While not all of this is set out in the level of detail the member might wish to see, it is provided for as an expectation, as the intention of the Government that that is on it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn terms of the member\u2019s suggestion around a delayed commencement date, New Zealanders have waited far too long for an enduring reform and reset of expectations of the resource management system. Turning it on one month after Royal assent will deliver on the ambitions of this Government, but also deliver for all New Zealanders who want a far simpler, more agile, responsive, and lower-cost planning system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u00225d070f31cdd7da9557f039131dfb2823\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225d070f31cdd7da9557f039131dfb2823\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (11:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019m wanting to speak regarding title and commencement, and I have a couple of proposed titles. One of the things that was elucidated through the process of us grilling the Ministers on the Planning Bill was the fact that the regulatory relief component of it, whereby property owners are to be compensated financially for protection of nature, is, in a very specific regard\u2014that is the status of urban trees\u2014totally unworkable and has been totally not thought out or thought through.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn that instance we have\u2014I\u2019ll give T\u0101maki-makau-rau, Auckland, as an example, because I know it well\u20146,000 currently scheduled protected trees. The Minister clarified that perhaps only a third of those would retain some status because of their heritage value. That means trees with botanical amenity\u2014ecological functions\u2014would no longer be protected. If a council decided they wish to protect them, they would have to set up a framework for doing that and provide a mechanism of giving compensation for not destroying those trees.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen the Minister was asked what that compensation might be\u2014some sort of figure\u2014he had no idea. What is the budget for protecting 4,000 or 6,000 trees? Because indeed the heritage trees are still subject to regulatory relief. What is a tree worth? What is a 300-year-old tree worth? What is a 200-year-old tree worth? It provides these values. The Minister had no answer to that. What sort of budget is necessary to protect the 6,000 trees that this legislation takes out of protected status? There is no budget estimated. People have talked about a figure of $2 billion for implementing regulatory relief across the whole country, because the scale of inverting the principle of a commons that is good for the whole society, and therefore deserves a protected status, has been entirely inverted by this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EInstead of seeing trees in a value to the whole of the society and therefore worthy of protection, this legislation says, \u201CNo, if you want to look after nature and the commons, you\u2019ve got to pay for it.\u201D It\u2019s ideologically nonsensical and utterly unworkable in a practical sense, because who\u2019s going to pay the regulatory relief? The ratepayer. Where does the money come from? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f45f77a1513d6c1cc178cd658150cb9e\u0022\u003EFrancisco Hernandez\u003C/span\u003E: Sounds like a tax.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222ec2523489326035194ef02dc34a55e3\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: It is a tax. Regulatory relief is a tax. Let\u2019s be very clear about that. It\u2019s unworkable ideological madness. What I\u2019m proposing is that\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022443f23de4cbd464f91833e6c466c98c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226fed7286d9228b43f52b8ddef5c3d1ae\u0022\u003ETodd Stephenson\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s not a tax, mate. You don\u2019t understand what a tax is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022da722a41a50dff048bc4dd529bdc65fc\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: Take a call, Todd Stephenson. What I\u2019m proposing is the name for the bill which is Planning (On Tree Destruction) Bill. Because that\u2019s what it does: it plans on destruction of the most valuable and exceptional trees in our urban areas. In Nelson, in Auckland\u2014about three quarters of the trees in Nelson will lose any status at all through the legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EYou could call it the Chainsaw Massacre Bill. Because in 2012, when general tree protection was lifted\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221b468ba359930abc526b085eb54ff7f3\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003EFrivolous!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d06ba8eb2a28e1130d15ea8a23462c42\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: In 2012, when general tree protection was lifted by the last National Government, John Key made a quote that he didn\u2019t think that the chainsaws were going to be heard across T\u0101maki-makau-rau, Auckland\u2014he didn\u2019t say T\u0101maki-makau-rau\u2014and they were. We saw a mass loss of urban trees because of the loss of general tree protection. This is not just getting rid of general tree protection, which hasn\u2019t been reinstated. This is getting rid of the scheduling and protection of those most exceptional trees in our urban areas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnother notable thing of this bill is its expectation that regulatory relief will be paid for protecting ecology on the hinterland of Auckland, in the space that goes into that magnificent Waitakere Ranges, the lungs of Auckland. That will have to be also compensated for. Now, the values of those properties, because they\u2019re alongside our biggest city, are very high. The compensation is going to be high. Again, who\u2019s going to pay it? What\u2019s the budget for it? The effect of it is the death by a thousand cuts of that magnificent regenerating lungs of Auckland on the west part of T\u0101maki-makau-rau. So this bill could also be the Lungs of Auckland (Death by a Thousand Cuts) Bill. Because the effect of it will be to undermine those long-fought-for protections by that local community of West Auckland to ensure that we protect the existing spatial planning designation that protects its exceptional value. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve proposed those two titles. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00223c86b736bca340bff24078e151a4fc01\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223c86b736bca340bff24078e151a4fc01\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (11:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Answering very briefly, we\u2019ve been very clear that the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act provisions carry over.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe member raised the spectre of the cost of regulatory relief being $2 billion. The report he refers to by MartinJenkins said the range could be $7 million to $2 billion, which shows how little is understood by those who claim to know.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe member referred to the cost of a tree. The legislation and Government\u2019s intent is not to value the tree; it\u2019s to put a value and seek to have transparency over the potential cost of protecting a public value on private property, against the cost or limit to the use of that private property. The member suggested that private property is held in the commons. It is not. That is, we do not subscribe to the collectivist understanding of society that the Green Party does. We believe in the rights of the individuals and private property rights, and so we will not be accepting the member\u2019s proposed change to the title.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c4ca4cc5411f4905b1e974d906283186\u0022 data-id=\u00226208c941ae4d3a34522285108c3bb365\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4ca4cc5411f4905b1e974d906283186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226208c941ae4d3a34522285108c3bb365\u0022\u003EMARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Tai Tokerau) (11:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019ve been sitting this morning listening to a whole bunch of typical, I think, paternalistic, privileged rhetoric. This is the one question that I did want to ask. Does the member in the chair, is he familiar with the phrase\u2014because as I\u2019m listening, he\u2019s going, \u201CMari will or M\u0101ori will get\u2014they\u2019re an interested party. Yes, we know about them. We\u2019ve got\u201D\u2014this whole attitude about \u201CMaris\u201D or M\u0101ori. Is he familiar with the phrase, \u201CThat\u2019s mighty white of you\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019m interested if you know that\u2014\u201CThat\u2019s mighty white of you\u201D. Because it is the question that rages in me when I\u2019m listening to that paternalistic, privileged rhetoric to get away with making such trite statements as if 180 years never existed on this land. You stand and all puffed up and all that kind of behaviour. It just, for many M\u0101ori that are watching this and watching that kind of behaviour, we know\u2014and they will know\u2014this is why we just simply cannot trust you. Not a single ounce of you. And all of those that carry that same kind of racist, bigoted thinking. I know you might moan, but to the ones that will moan when I say that, it\u2019s simply because you cannot help your ignorance. You are completely uneducated. You think you know, and you think that the individual scene and the individual\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E] calm down, I\u2019m speaking\u2014is better than, then you simply are full of ignorance there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227ee01dd42fbfeee96893a80a24220982\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Hold a sec. There is a lot of chatter going across the Chamber, and I do want that to cease. But if I could encourage the member to focus on the title and the commencement date. It\u2019s important that this relates to the title and commencement date\u2014that is the subject of this debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4ca4cc5411f4905b1e974d906283186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228cebcb3f1c984cc4d344d7142f94a0d6\u0022\u003EMARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI\u003C/span\u003E: I presented at a deputation at the Far North District Council just recently, and I could see the efforts of that council to do their utmost and utter best to make the difference for wh\u0101nau in Tai Tokerau\u2014up in the Far North. They were doing their best to figure it out, but the immense pressure that this piece of work, this particular bill\u2014this House is labelling them and pressuring them to do the best with very little funds. And then I listened to this response again this morning about, \u201COh, they\u2019re just going to have to make it work.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ETo the commencement itself: I mean, as you can tell, Mr Chair, this is such a fundamentally unworkable and failing plan. I would want to just say let\u2019s not do this at all. But I am interested in the answer to \u201CThat\u2019s mighty white of you\u201D\u2014have you heard it before? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003615\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ce27076fb8989620bf140cd81af607ee\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Before I take the next call, just to note for the House, we have had a number of calls based on the commencement date and the Minister has been engaging. I did note that there is actually a lot more in this commencement clause than there is in terms of the normal bills that come to this House as well, so we\u2019ve been canvassing that particular part of it. If there are calls that are going to be made about the commencement date, please build on and don\u2019t repeat things that have been said before. Building on the responses from the member in the chair is fine, but just to note that we have canvassed that. I do note we\u2019ve also moved to more contributions about the title, so we are getting close to it. I will next take the call\u2014Arena Williams.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022b37a0b2e4ac60287e44369d48c65215b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b37a0b2e4ac60287e44369d48c65215b\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (11:10)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to make a pitch to the member in the chair, Simon Court, about naming this bill the \u201CCompetitive Urban Land Markets in Planning Bill\u201D. This is a speech I\u2019ve been waiting to give because it did not fit in Part 5 for some time. This is an incredibly significant policy contribution to the way that the planning regime will work in the future. If it had been introduced at the first reading I\u2019m sure that it would have made it to the title because it is significant and it changes the way that urban land markets will work in the future of New Zealand, particularly for Auckland, in a way which is novel. It is different to what both the Natural and Built Environments Bill was trying to achieve and the Planning Bill in its first reading, and that\u2019s why we should be acknowledging this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECongratulations to the Minister\u2014this is something that has met with broad support in the House. When it was voted on last night, late at night, it was the only amendment which was voted on unanimously. This is something where in the work to build bipartisan and cross-partisan consensus, not only on a pipeline for infrastructure work that we can lift out of the daily fray, so too can we work on not only a pipeline of workforce to be able to do that work that we need in New Zealand with New Zealanders and young New Zealanders getting those opportunities, but also with a long-term and cross-partisan commitment to a system where urban land markets are dealt with fairly and where there is competition in the long run so that we can get things built in this country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s why this Planning Bill should be renamed \u201CPlanning (Competitive Urban Land Markets) Bill\u201D. The problem is that we have this persistent scarcity problem in New Zealand\u2019s land markets and geography explains some of it, but we\u2019re not like Hong Kong\u2014there\u2019s not a hard urban limit in our cities as they continue to expand. There is an effective urban limit, though, which then sets the land price\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002275c0fbdf04e25fac898ae9d0380a3a45\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Harbours.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222fe5f5563b11caaf732e1a2ae36824bf\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, there are harbours, yes, but Auckland continues to expand out like a long noodle between its two harbours. It\u2019s those fringes as it expands that set the price for land in Auckland, and so the cost of building is effectively what we\u2019re trying to change here. We\u2019re trying to make sure that we\u2019re not artificially restricting and therefore increasing the price of land that\u2019s available in our biggest city, and that is something that is critically important to almost everyone in this House with an interest in land development.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe member in the chair said, \u201CWe don\u2019t subscribe to this collectivist idea that the Greens have about land development\u201D, but this is an idea which is ideological: that we can have a competitive market for land and one which does broadly have the approval of everyone in this House. It is an ideological step. It is based on the idea that you can have more competition, that you don\u2019t need to be restricted by either the artificial monopoly that the council has or the real and present oligopoly in the market, which is large developers who can command some level of market control, some level of market dominance by sitting on land for a long period of time and waiting for the value to inflate at the expense of the growth of our cities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003622\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat gap continues to exist in this bill. We\u2019re not completely getting rid of it, but this is a significant step in dealing with the problem. Our planning system has never had a means of enforcing that goal and that has been the problem for a city like Auckland in managing its own aspirations and goals around growing into the global city that we need it to be if the whole of New Zealand is going to be prosperous.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe consequence that follows if we don\u2019t get this right puts it back on Government to summon up the political will to fight their own constituents. This is the trade off, that there are National MPs and Labour MPs that have been campaigning against the very things that the statutory officer is meant to mediate for\u2014that Stockade Hill in Panmure is likely to lose its view protections because of something like this; that my own constituency in Manurewa is likely to lose the protections around the two tupuna maunga, Matukut\u016Bruru and Matukut\u016Breia because of things like this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003624\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe problem we have here is that those protections are unequally enforced, and this is a mechanism by which we can get at least some fairness in the system; that communities all around the country can have some hope that there is a fair umpire, and if they are losing those critical protections, that at least it is fair and it is in the service of building more affordable housing faster.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00226b008cb5d5bc7e10520e063a975e4f9d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226b008cb5d5bc7e10520e063a975e4f9d\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (11:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019ve got a few different topics to talk on, and most of them are building on responses from the member who was in the chair before the Minister. One of them is this turning on some of these changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA) in a month\u2019s time. I\u2019ve heard the Prime Minister speak about it in terms of \u201Cin a month\u2019s time, the RMA will be reformed\u201D, and then the member in the chair just before the Minister said something similar about how in one month\u2019s time everything is changing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI would ask the Minister now if he would like to comment on that, because my impression from the commencement clause is that most of this bill does not turn on in a month\u2019s time. Most of this bill turns on once different things have happened, and that will be in a wee while, and then there is a backstop of four years. So why is it that there is this rhetoric that everything\u2019s changing in a month?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003627\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA different question is in relation to the questions and suggestions for title changes from Steve Abel, there was some back and forth\u2014and Arena Williams just referred to it as well\u2014about this belief that trees are private property in the ACT framework of the world and they are not in the Green framework of the world. This is really important, because the regulatory relief goes to biodiversity and by saying that a landowner also owns the trees, then that must mean that they also own the bats in the trees and the geckos on the ground, and that is this important distinction that we\u2019ve been trying to make about why regulatory relief is a totally new concept in New Zealand, which is why one of my title suggestions was that this Act is the \u201CAnti-Planning Act\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy third point is that the member in the chair before told everyone that he was disappointed in me because I wasn\u2019t being constructive\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003629\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002259b64ef2380ab03e12c97c97795810eb\u0022\u003EFrancisco Hernandez\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m not disappointed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ce06a4166289ff63a855164804ff6dea\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Very pleased to hear that my friend from Dunedin is not disappointed in me\u2014thank you, Francisco Hernandez. I\u2019ll remember that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003631\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe have been trying to be as constructive as possible and have offered up very clear amendments that go back to our differing view in select committee that we tried to work through very constructively in select committee. In fact, what has happened is that all of the concerns that I raised with the Minister at the Planning Institute Conference in Invercargill just days after he\u2019d released a report from an expert group\u2014those concerns have been apparent and public throughout and I have tried to advocate for those changes, one of them, of course being regulatory relief that we were just discussing. Instead, during the select committee process, members went in the opposite direction, and then we have had this giant Amendment Paper released by the Government at the end of last week, and it has gone further in the wrong direction. So I\u2019m not sure how it is that I\u2019m supposed to be constructive in the member\u2019s mind beyond what has happened. This Government has chosen to go in the opposite direction from a very reasonable Opposition, an Opposition who, despite, as the Minister knows, would of course liked to have seen the Spatial Planning Act and the Natural and Built Environment Act continue, but I could put away my ego and my vanity and say, \u201COK. Well, if you are going to repeal it so you think it will have longevity, let\u2019s work on that.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo me, that sounds like a very constructive approach, yet I\u2019ve just heard that I\u2019ve not been constructive, and I would like the Minister\u2019s comment on that. Thank you very much.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022760260022f0d231af83ac8aa94b3d810\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003633\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022760260022f0d231af83ac8aa94b3d810\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (11:20)\u003C/span\u003E: Just firstly in relation to Miss Williams\u2019 suggestion about the Planning Bill, competitive urban land markets, it\u2019s slightly inconsistent with her colleague\u2019s amendment that it should be called the \u201CAnti-planning Bill\u201D. There seems to be a slight bit of tension there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225b1e881fdde8ad353598c8b290e77139\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: \u201CCentral Planning Committee Bill\u201D as well, has been suggested.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227be17c6df333a6977e10d3c315aea2a1\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: I think, to be fair, you\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002269b8aa433654b3fa263506b8cb7be6c0\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: We have lots.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022274300943862567f97ae53a8c18e2819\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I know that. I think you\u2019re just making up names in order to elongate the debate. So we won\u2019t be accepting that. The bill is called the Planning Bill because it will become the Planning Act, which will become our major planning statute, and we think the name is entirely appropriate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003638\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EOn the suggestion from Rachel Brooking, there are a couple of points there. The first point is there\u2019s a staggered commencement. As the member knows, you can see it in transitionals and in the commencement dates itself. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003639\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224f21e7e56e687e4caaaff8d86029110e\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s not what the Prime Minister says.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003640\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a2cda63b986335d994d3d6cd5bb2fa94\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the next point I was about to make is that some things come into effect a month after Royal assent, some quick wins for people\u2014the risk of reopening the debate, which I understand happened again this morning around Juliet balconies and other things to do with which way TVs\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003641\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ff222e9808b2831245af80da6b798bc0\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Very Shakespearean\u2014Shakespearean tragedy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226f0dcb530bba517ffc704c1d4e254091\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014it is a Shakespearean tragedy\u2014face and layouts of living rooms and things like that. The other thing is retail distributive effects and other such nonsense that\u2019s currently in effect under the Resource Management Act. So that is good progress.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003643\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI take a slightly more amiable view than others in relation to the member\u2019s engagement on this bill. I think it would be good if both major parties could meet in the middle. But, as I said to her repeatedly, and I don\u2019t wish to relitigate it, it\u2019s not actually anything to do with the bill. As I said before, the foundation of this bill has to be good public policy. There are just differences between the parties on it. The member claims that regulatory relief is a disaster. We have a different view. The member claims that it balances too far in favour of growth and development against the environment. The Government profoundly disagrees with that perspective.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis member\u2019s got a range of different issues that her and I have talked about online and offline. We have a different view. That\u2019s actually, at the end of the day, what Parliament is all about. Sometimes disagreement is a healthy thing. In fact, very often it is a healthy thing. We\u2019re trying to create the best public policy we can for the future of this country. The Government stands behind the bills and the amendments that it has placed before the committee. I would love the Opposition to support them, but I also fully understand where they\u2019re coming from. That\u2019s why we\u2019re having this debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022784f4e929aed4ea6a05d1a10add6eccb\u0022 data-id=\u0022cfb61c52e42a0ee71395b72869db8a5b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003645\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022784f4e929aed4ea6a05d1a10add6eccb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cfb61c52e42a0ee71395b72869db8a5b\u0022\u003ERYAN HAMILTON (National\u2014Hamilton East) (11:23)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fc16a13501e2787714953f5c6400b451\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: I am looking for new material, and I didn\u2019t note before that we are moving into the title part of this debate, which is an opportunity for members to summarise their content. But I don\u2019t want that content repeated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022 data-id=\u0022a16dde6ebfcc0e4d176c5ebfd3be32f3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a16dde6ebfcc0e4d176c5ebfd3be32f3\u0022\u003EORIINI KAIPARA (Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori\u2014T\u0101maki Makaurau) (11:23)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair, t\u0113n\u0101 koe. In terms of the title\u2014and I ask the Minister responsible for RMA Reform to take these suggestions very seriously, as seriously as he takes his Resource Management Act reform and his Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill that\u2019s set to make its way into this committee very shortly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003648\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe two names I suggest, on behalf of te iwi M\u0101ori, are very serious and reflect the nature\u2014pun intended\u2014the true nature, in the intent of this bill. Here is the name: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003E\u201CTe Ture Raupatu\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E Translators will be able to help me out on that one. However, for the committee, \u201CTe Ture Raupatu\u201D really reflects what this Planning Bill is doing to iwi, to M\u0101ori, and, in this case, to the lovely people of Waikato-Tainui, who are upstairs in this Chamber. This is the type of impact that this bill in the committee of the whole House has had for the last three nights. It\u2019s actually dragged out the taniwha from the Waikato awa and brought them right here to the bosom of this very Chamber to contest and to ask directly, \u201CWhy the hell is PC1 put on pause?\u201D, because that actually renders \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003E[Authorised reo M\u0101ori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]\u003C/span\u003E ineffective. Everybody is vulnerable without the safety and the protective measures that existed before. They did need changing, but not in this way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo \u201CTe Ture Raupatu\u201D is an accurate reflection in te reo M\u0101ori, when we look at the details and the devil in the details of this Planning Bill as well as its sister bill that\u2019s set to come in, for that a suggestion, and I know the time will come for the Health Committee, but to ensure there\u2019s duality across both bills and to mitigate confusion about which one is which. This one is \u201CTe Ture Raupatu\u201D; that one \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003E[Authorised reo M\u0101ori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]\u003C/span\u003E\u2014makes sense in te ao M\u0101ori, and I implore the Minister to take it very seriously.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003650\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOn the issue of commencement, to be fair and frank, Minister, when I look into the amendments that were tabled by the Minister in urgency this week, Amendment Paper 709, and flip to Plan Change 1 (PC1), right there it says there\u2019s no relevant date under PC1, occurs before the close of 31 December. There\u2019s still confusion around start dates, end dates. That impact\u2014the mana motuhake and tino rangatiratanga\u2014of those five iwi that have mana authority to te awa o Waikato, but spare a thought for every other awa, for every other mana whenua, and every other iwi who aren\u2019t classified as iwi authorities right now, who will be sitting in their whare, in their car, watching this very committee, very concerned about when this all kicks in.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo a proposal really is to ensure that there\u2019s fairness across the board and especially when mana whenua rights, iwi rights, that have existed in time immemorial and are now at real threat of being undone by this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002220fa119e49517525edb2316b54fb986f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: I hope everybody remembers what I just said about new material.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u00227b07bc78ee5f3a0cfd86db3a1a06b1b4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227b07bc78ee5f3a0cfd86db3a1a06b1b4\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (11:26)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I seek clarification on the new material? It\u2019s part of a very recent exchange and discussion around the title between the preceding member in the Chair, who talked about collectivist ideology, and my colleague Rachel Brooking and myself. I just would like to ask the Minister responsible for RMA Reform to elucidate a view on the principles that underpin the legislation based on that exchange.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226350f938d2f65aaced78986c784b507a\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: Sure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003655\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c715d6e8128d145c13505f4c26068d7a\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo my colleague Rachel Brooking\u2014I made the point that trees are part of a commons. Just to clarify that point, if a 300-year-old p\u014Dhutukawa tree stands on a private property, the average ownership length of private property in this country is seven years. So, houses are bought and sold with such frequency that it\u2019s only ever going to be owned by that particular owner for about seven years on average. That means for a tree to survive for 100 years, say, it has to have had subsequent owners not cut it down. You\u2019re only one owner in the course of that tree\u2019s hypothetical life, to decide to cut it down, for it to be lost in terms of all the benefits it offers to the whole society\u2014i.e., biodiversity, cooling, carbon sequestration, beauty, and so forth.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, my colleague made the point that if a gecko was in that tree, because that tree\u2019s on private property, the assumption in this legislation is that the owner of that property owns the tree and can do what they like with it, and if we don\u2019t want them to cut it down, we have to compensate them for not cutting it down. Now, if a gecko is in that tree, is that also private property? If a t\u016B\u012B comes and lands in that tree, is it also private property?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe point is, no. Under law, we say it doesn\u2019t matter whether it\u2019s on your property or not, you can\u2019t kill a native bird or native gecko. They have a protected status irrespective of whether they\u2019re on private property. That is the principle around which tree protection and notable trees and scheduled trees, which have been taken out of protected status in this legislation, are protected. The broader principle is one that private property is a very useful concept in many ways. I mean, it\u2019s a useful way to designate who has rights over certain bits of land, but it has significant limitations when you come to the broader commons. We can\u2019t designate biodiversity as private property, just as the Queen\u2019s Chain principle, which is a principle this country was founded on after the signing of Te Tiriti\u2014it\u2019s just to say you shouldn\u2019t be able to own the rivers. The rivers are a collective good and a commons.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe oceans are likewise; the atmosphere itself. These are commons that no one can really technically own. Iwi M\u0101ori have customary rights to those commons, but they\u2019re not private property. This is to elucidate and seek clarification for the Minister on just how radical what is being proposed in this legislation is, because it\u2019s applying a principle of private property across things that are the Commons, biodiversity being the most exceptional example, but including those trees in our urban areas that we have set and agreed are the most exceptional examples of trees that should be protected, irrespective of whether they grow on private property or not, because they are part of the collective good of our whole society. That is what is so radical about this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019d like the Minister to comment on just what an inversion it is on the principle contained in things like the Queen\u2019s Chain, contained in things like the principle that the biodiversity of our nation does not belong to anyone. None of us has a right to go and kill a t\u016B\u012B or a gecko. Why should you be allowed to kill a 300-year-old p\u014Dhutukawa tree that grows on a bit of property that you happen to own for seven years?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002257364a286ae2db7b51a79c58e63ebc2c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: I am looking for that new material. I do take the point that we are here to debate and to build on contributions made from members and the Minister as well, but please keep it narrowed to the title.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022e191db9a4d9cdeb0f9436e568bf2a0ae\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e191db9a4d9cdeb0f9436e568bf2a0ae\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (11:31)\u003C/span\u003E: OK. The title is the Planning Act and the Minister responsible for RMA Reform just brought the Juliet balconies back into the conversation. I would let the member know that there was no answer to my question about fixtures and how they compare\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002294063170e8cb51fd23f9956af1ef18f8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: This is title and commencement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d80afc997c3039c85ddfd6e91107063e\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: It is related to the Planning Act, Mr Chair, because it is a straw man that this Government has put up again and again. They have said to people, \u201COh, those nasty planners\u201D\u2014and this goes to why I\u2019m calling it the \u201CAnti-Planning Act\u201D\u2014\u201Cwant to tell you where to put the TV. They want to tell you where to put the couch.\u201D Then when I asked them for examples of there being consent conditions relevant to fixtures\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f67437feb60accda062499f3cd781bad\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Storage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022facac8f99c6de93de0cde43536b7a827\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: I hear storage and I hear Juliet balconies. Those are not fixtures. This is relevant to the straw man that this Government has put up to say that somehow this bill is about planning, when unfortunately the Minister has not listened to my very sensible amendments that have been proposed throughout this. Instead of it being about planning, it is about costing the ratepayer. It is about costing the ratepayer, because that is who has to pay for regulatory relief. It is about diminishing M\u0101ori involvement in any planning that has happened under the Resource Management Act (RMA). This bill goes backwards from the RMA. I did not think that that was a possibility, but here we are. So that is against planning as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThis bill will lead to more flooding and more stormwater incidents because of the lack of planning. This bill will lead to cell phone towers everywhere because of the impacts on everything to do with visual amenity. There has just been nothing about place. We\u2019ve seen that in the document, the national direction that the Minister has been going like this with\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f064c7471c9e7e35e294da0ba9e9fef9\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Waving around.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003669\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223a55441d353e384f8db5b63a4f327ea4\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Waving around; that is the word I\u2019m looking for. Waving around. That will come through as well. That is anti-planning, and this goes to the title.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve heard that infrastructure, which has the widest definition possible\u2014anything to do with the economy, so a shop\u2014can be in areas where there are hazards. This goes to planning as well. It is anti-planning. Why would we want to put a shop, why would we want to put an early childhood centre in a hazard area? It is anti-planning. It is a disaster. It could have been fixed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022ac9e7cf99d6bc7177ad473b1cd2243e4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ac9e7cf99d6bc7177ad473b1cd2243e4\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (11:34)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the member has just made those points repeatedly throughout the debate and is using the time now around the title to reiterate her view that it is anti-planning. It isn\u2019t. The title is the appropriate title for the bill; it is a planning bill. I appreciate the member doesn\u2019t like some elements of it. Fine. We have debated that at length, but the title is the appropriate title for the bill. It is a significant part of the Government\u2019s legislative agenda, but the title literally does what it says on the tin. It is a Planning bill which will become a Planning Act to help New Zealand do spatial plans, combined regional plans, land use plans, natural environment plans, and will set New Zealand up for success.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022 data-id=\u00221867579e55e64b669f931ca40a64317e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003672\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221867579e55e64b669f931ca40a64317e\u0022\u003ETOM RUTHERFORD (National\u2014Bay of Plenty) (11:35)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003677\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003679\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat clause 1 be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003680\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003682\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003683\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003684\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003685\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c2e97397fbec2ac7f85cf492354b55b8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Arena Williams\u2019 tabled amendment to the Minister\u2019s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 709 amending clause 2 to amend new subclause (2AA) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003686\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment to the amendments to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003687\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003688\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003689\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003690\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003691\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendments to the amendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003692\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c8a80338530bd22ae8e26e0157ec2c35\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 709 amending clause 2 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003693\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003694\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003695\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003696\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003697\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003698\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments to the amendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003699\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022948330ab93a62956f297f348981b1d5a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 709 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003700\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003701\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003702\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003703\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003704\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003705\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003706\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c09d3cc179469c36b917390f84226a66\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s amendment to clause 2(3) set out on Amendment Paper 733 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003707\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is That H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s amendment to clause 2(1) set out on Amendment Paper 733 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003709\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003711\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003712\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003713\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003714\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat clause 2 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003715\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003716\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003717\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003718\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003719\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003720\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill to be reported with amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00225fa2d0440e42c7e6920e7e665c6e7048\u0022\u003ENatural Environment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003722\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f450ce777bffe0de08f7d0558d7065d9\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u002260754c2fbf536234b3ec7c9b48eb61dc\u0022\u003EPart 1 Preliminary provisions, and Schedules 1 and 6\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003724\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002215015afaf2e2154731c645399f14bcae\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to the Natural Environment Bill. We begin with the debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 10\u2014\u201CPreliminary provisions\u201D\u2014and Schedule 1, \u201CTransitional, savings, and related provisions\u201D; and Schedule 6, \u201CStatutory acknowledgements\u201D. The question is that Part 1 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u002235b7148784851ee32963608f9d2e5a3a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003725\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002235b7148784851ee32963608f9d2e5a3a\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (11:43)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Part 1 includes the definitions. It also includes the purpose and the Treaty of Waitangi clause and some new clauses related to that and the rules that contain fishing. Not too many clauses here, but some important ones, including, of course, the purpose.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003726\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI want to go to my published Amendment Paper 686. This relates to page 25, and again, we\u2019re on\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003727\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226ffebb68bb08a35b0e6ac1faedd02ecf\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Did you say 686?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003728\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d5a8594c31dbc42d7d15fb70939299bf\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I did.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003729\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226e8be47eeea5fb4681f4d91d56ed8c28\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Just checking my hearing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003730\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002208641a5460f2ce12adeaef5274c54f59\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: I just had to check. I do have Amendment Paper 666 coming up as well, but not quite yet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003731\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227a0357b2051cb17cf17d97c96ba064d4\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: 666!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003732\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dd7ae075337681ee6a2057b77de0a418\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Yep.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003733\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002216133ffab18774c22641766c3270b4bf\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: OK.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003734\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022825c5d9fd40f3f82aa7c2db34485cca9\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Anyway\u2014but I\u2019m not on that one yet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003735\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224ce1996ff4ba645c2ccc09692ab061a7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Heavy metal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003736\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229ec63a1ebdd1c78707d158842a866b18\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019ll come back to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003737\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ENow, I\u2019ll start again. I am looking at the Minister responsible for RMA Reform\u2019s Amendment Paper 7-1-0\u2014or 710 might be an easier way to say it\u2014which is the whole bill with some amendments that were made late last week. I presume that there are no other amendments from the Minister on this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003738\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222f8e2d8565d0514720dc8cd25d4b65e4\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: There are a couple of minor slips.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003739\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223811df88f716c15deda04742613ee610\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: A couple of minor slips. Well, I\u2019ll have a look at the Table and find those.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003740\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut for now I\u2019m going to talk about the definition of \u201Cinfrastructure\u201D, and that is what my Amendment Paper is about. Of course, the definition of \u201Cinfrastructure\u201D has an \u201Cor\u201D in it. It means \u201Ca physical structure, facility, or network that performs a public function; or\u201D\u2014and the \u201Cor\u201D is very important because it doesn\u2019t need to perform a public function. It can be something that has no public function\u2014no public function\u2014but \u201Cis necessary to \u2026 the functioning of the economy:\u201D. Then there are one or more of the following\u2014so it can just be one; it can just be the functioning of the economy. Infrastructure is now defined as \u201Ca physical structure necessary to support the functioning of the economy:\u201D. That is how the definition of infrastructure can be read, and that is very much how I am reading it for this bill, the Natural Environment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003741\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis seems incredibly wide, particularly as the term \u201Cinfrastructure\u201D is used to determine a whole lot of situations around\u2014we will get to limits and when limits can be avoided; not a limit, but we\u2019ll talk about that. The question is if the Minister would agree with my Amendment Paper 686, and that is to delete \u201Cthe functioning of the economy:\u201D so that infrastructure has to either perform a public function or be related to the functioning of communities, the health and safety of people, the protection of the environment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022a7222b4fff872f3ea4d322e31d194840\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003742\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a7222b4fff872f3ea4d322e31d194840\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (11:46)\u003C/span\u003E: We spent about an hour on this during the Planning Bill and the definition is the same.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003743\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227bedb3296ac52a98e15605d15cefdae2\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, did we?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003744\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229768661bdabd8eddc45b0be975181a8c\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, we did. I\u2019m not sure it\u2019s really worth the committee\u2019s time debating the same debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003745\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d8de89be33f4b2a9a23bad62b8d3fb3e\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Why have two different bills then?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003746\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cd93c0d64d1b1a82c947504d1f1d8855\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, that is an issue of debate, but not really part of this part that goes to the structure\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003747\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cda69a1cdd426946fe497de885c3b7eb\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich\u003C/span\u003E: Which part is it part of?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003748\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e8dc870a7a2073f2f05fe18fb0bba190\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it goes to the structure of the overall approach, which is for the various different readings rather than the part-by-part analysis. We have debated this at length\u2014the definition of infrastructure is broad to recognise a range of infrastructure needs, support long-term planning, and avoid disputes over whether particular assets qualify as infrastructure. Decisions about the priority given to infrastructure and the rules that apply to it are determined, obviously, through national instruments and plans.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003749\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EBefore the member asks: yes, the green infrastructure is captured in the definition of it. Again, we debated this at length about 24 hours ago. \u201CInfrastructure\u201D includes a natural feature that is modified to perform certain functions\u2014for example, a wetland that is modified to act as stormwater retention to reduce flooding. This change was made by the Environment Committee to ensure green infrastructure was included in the definition of \u201Cinfrastructure\u201D. I wasn\u2019t on the select committee, but I suspect the member was advocating for precisely that change, which is an example of a collaborative and collegial way the Environment Committee worked its way through the issues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003750\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229d8fbe351a1baa2dafd76f7054c81cfe\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Just before I take the next call, this bill will be treated as a new bill\u2014for those who are watching; for those who subsequently will need to look at comments in the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E. From the Chair\u2019s point of view, we treat it as though it is what it is, which is a new bill here. Those on my left are fully entitled to examine it as they would any other bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00223d54d4411d9bda4a462f0a53f4f2cd57\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003751\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223d54d4411d9bda4a462f0a53f4f2cd57\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (11:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for that clarification as well. That\u2019s very useful because, of course, we may have debated things 24 hours ago\u2014maybe even more than 24 hours ago, I don\u2019t know; I\u2019ve lost track of time. But even regardless of that, the definition of \u201Cinfrastructure\u201D is important for this bill; for this Natural Environment Bill, because it goes into\u2014we will get into the limits later.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003752\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI appreciate the Minister responsible for RMA Reform\u2019s pre-emptive strike on green infrastructure. Indeed, that is a good change, and I would just say that Government members should listen to me more frequently. I\u2019m going to give them an opportunity to do that right now, and that is to go to clause 4, which is the purpose, and I have Amendment Paper 688. That would be to change the purpose\u2014and I am very happy to admit to the committee that this purpose has been plagiarised from advice that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has given, and that is to make the purpose an actual purpose clause rather than talking about a framework.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003753\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI am pleased that the purpose clause does talk about the enhancement of the natural environment\u2014it is a good word to be included in the purpose.  But Amendment Paper 688 proposes to change it to: \u201CThe purpose of this Act is to maintain and improve the natural environment and safeguard human health, provide for the adaptation to climate change effects, manage risk of natural hazards, and inform planning under the Planning Act 2025.\u201D In terms of informing planning under the Planning Act, I\u2019ve got some amendments later as well that go towards trying to integrate these two pieces of legislation that we were talking about, one bill after the other, but they are in separate bills and they are going to have term after term that repeats, which I just think is stupid and entirely inefficient. I don\u2019t know why anybody would want to do that, unless they are hellbent on trying to end integrated management, and I would say that that is where I think the ACT Party sits on this, but I would have thought better from the National Party.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003754\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis purpose is a way to help integrate those two bills and to talk to how they talk to each other. I\u2019m happy to amend my amendment so that rather than \u201Cimprove\u201D the natural environment it\u2019s to \u201Cenhance\u201D, if we think \u201Cenhance\u201D is better than \u201Cimprove\u201D. The Minister could comment on both my suggested purposed changes and also the integration of the two bills, noting that the natural environment is not some magical other that is outside of our cities or our built environments. When we go outside of this building, there are trees; when we go outside of this building, there is rain, there is air pollution\u2014you know, just one step outside of the building, we have these impacts. So that is why it\u2019s good to think of them all together and to have integrated management. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u0022eeba5746538d3e355642a810dd707f3e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003755\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022eeba5746538d3e355642a810dd707f3e\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (11:51)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Like my colleague Rachel Brooking, I really appreciate the clarification about how important it is that we treat this bill with the respect it deserves, given the serious implications for the entire country. The points that my colleague has made about it being nonsensical that these bills are split in the first instance\u2014this is just one example of why that is the case and why everyone who interacts with these bills across the whole of the planning sector is going to find this same issue, where they feel like there\u2019s confusion, there\u2019s repetition, there\u2019s complications, and that\u2019s what we heard, resoundingly, from submitters.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003756\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo begin with, I wanted to pick up on something in the definitions, because I have an Amendment Paper about it later in the actual Act. But what I want to touch on is the definition of \u201Cinterim limit\u201D\u2014this is on page 25 of the Minister\u2019s amendment. My impression is that everyone wants a resource management system that actually gets us somewhere. One of the huge disappointments that came with the changes during the select committee stages was just this constant delay, pushing things out, and we\u2019ve seen it again with the Minister\u2019s last-minute amendments and changes to Plan Change 1 and Plan Change 2\u2014sorry, stopping them in their tracks, I should say. Everything is pushed back; even, in those instances, the dates for when the planning system may be in place is around 2032 or 2033, and at that stage, these so-called interim limits are just at decade-long intervals.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003757\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy question for the Minister is: why was it the Government\u2019s decision that they so deliberately wanted to push out, even in the interim limits, to 10 years? It\u2019s actually extraordinary in terms of claiming that there is a want and a desire to actually improve things, when even the interim limits will be that far in the future. So really interested to hear that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003758\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe next aspect I want to touch on is, of course, the purpose. I note in my colleague Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendment to simply put in place some basic direction that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has encouraged us to do. But I want to also bring up the fact that we had an independent KC advise us at select committee on the purposes of the two bills, and she was absolutely clear, and has in her advice to us, that the purposes will not guide or influence decision making. Now, that should be a concern, an absolute concern, for the Minister, for the Government, that there is not clear purpose in these bills.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003759\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve had on the Table, and we have on the Table right now, directions in terms of options for the Minister to actually listen to this; to pick it up and decide that he wants to improve things. I want to specifically touch on one of the Amendment Papers that is in the name of my colleague H\u016Bhana Lyndon, and this is changing the purpose at clause 4. Instead of it being so nothing, and to simply establish a framework which doesn\u2019t do anything, we\u2019re proposing that the purpose of the Act is actually to manage the environment in a way that protects and restores the health of the natural environment; that safeguards the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and that provides for the use and development of the environment in a way that actually promotes the wellbeing of both present and future generations within limits. What else is the point?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003760\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019d love to hear the Minister respond to the fact that there is not an intergenerational approach to these bills\u2014can he please address that? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022df4b8a3c8a45b0e1c26ceaa8b9f5159a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003761\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022df4b8a3c8a45b0e1c26ceaa8b9f5159a\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (11:57)\u003C/span\u003E: Just dealing with the last objection first: you don\u2019t need to have intergenerational language in the purpose clause to have intergenerational impacts, so I regret that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003762\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ELet me just take the issues raised by both Ms Brooking and Ms Pham in relation to purpose. I mean, the member sat through the select committee process. I\u2019m a bit surprised to hear her say the purpose clause doesn\u2019t do anything, it won\u2019t have an effect, etc. That\u2019s the point. That is the point of the Government\u2019s purpose clause. That is the point. I mean, like, she sat through hours of select committee hearings, we had a debate around the same provisions on the purpose\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003763\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022797453c988dad78c1c125745a9b661a3\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: And everyone says it doesn\u2019t work\u2014it doesn\u2019t work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003764\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b8aa4a7bd550fbef0dd15fc9a256b9dd\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: The whole point is that it\u2019s a descriptive framework clause. We\u2019ve sort of been there, done that, on this issue. The whole point is that we wish to avoid the endless litigation about the purpose clause in the new system. So the Resource Management Act\u2019s (RMA) approach of sustainable management in the purpose, etc.\u2014endless debate around that\u2014that\u2019s the approach we\u2019re deliberately trying to steer away from. So it is a descriptive purpose clause in the Natural Environment Bill, as it is in the Planning Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003765\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe problem with her Amendment Paper, which I\u2019ve looked at, is that it just\u2014I mean, it\u2019s even worse than the RMA in the sense that it just conflates a whole lot of different concepts and just shoves them in the purpose clause. It would be a recipe for endless litigation and debate and complications. That deals with Ms Brooking\u2019s and Ms Pham\u2019s questions around that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003766\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to interim limits, she asked why 10 years. Interim limits are a tool for when a limit is breached, and 10 years is to align with plan making, because plans are done every 10 years so the interim limits can be done every 10 years. The interim limits are used when a limit is breached. I actually see them as a step forward, because their wayfind is along the way, right? They\u2019re interim\u2014on the way to the limits. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003767\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo the member\u2019s last statement, and to return to the start of it, in terms of intergenerational limits, that is going to be something that you achieve over the long term. I mean, the starting point is that the RMA doesn\u2019t have limits\u2014the Natural Environment Bill is going to have limits across a variety of environmental domains. That is a massive step forward. And I appreciate the member doesn\u2019t think they go far enough; there\u2019d be others in the community who think the same thing, but there will be others equally on the other side of the debate who don\u2019t think we should have limits at all. So the member wants very strict environmental limits probably immediately. A lot of people don\u2019t want limits at all. We\u2019ve reached a position in the middle. I think it\u2019s a good step forward for the country. And, as I\u2019ve said multiple times, we should have economic development and growth within limits. That\u2019s what this bill sets up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003768\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ee8a1a8e0ec6a954d75f7b7fac27015f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Lan Pham.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003769\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c037bccbe20c8c8de0e483671601a4ba\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003770\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220ca96fdab09b4560c69f6718c20b6008\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Just to pick up\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003771\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221a36923ca568e4a25f5d956b677557ac\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, point of order, Hon Rachel Brooking.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00229d508ece07d4a60d92da2189c4655529\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003772\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229d508ece07d4a60d92da2189c4655529\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (12:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, just before, we had a quick interaction about amendments and which Amendment Papers we were looking at. We\u2019re looking at this Amendment Paper 710. The Minister indicated that there were some small Amendment Papers. I\u2019ve just been to the Table and I have not been able to find\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003773\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ce5eb0d461fc68e434233eacd285659a\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: They\u2019re extremely minor PCO drafting things.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003774\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002239f8fae6d67ca3139941f5307b4abb45\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: OK. But they\u2019re not on the Table yet?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003775\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002227122e44aa2027c3626df061429324cb\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: I don\u2019t believe so, no. They\u2019re coming.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003776\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e1a4a2c626870926a8d92d402200e258\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: OK, thank you. That is the answer to my question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003777\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a973244d4818a1586b01745216cdc7e9\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003778\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223b5e267677e252363bf7d2c133ba46db\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: A legitimate point of order, thank you. Lan Pham.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u0022f8b243c8e6c5bcb006b58849c06840c1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003779\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f8b243c8e6c5bcb006b58849c06840c1\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (12:01)\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Chair, is it possible for us to be\u2014for the Minister, when they do come in, just for him to alert us. Because sometimes officials come in very quietly, but I would be really keen to see those amendments. Would that be appropriate?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003780\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f7be33e49d085a900eecd93aff25424c\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, I can I tell you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003781\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002290b4a94c7fb0d5996e594a4d22dab99f\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Mr Chair?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003782\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022133ad708f2671185c80f59f5b940564e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Lan Pham.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u002204a0bd46c97c9fdd02f3e729c1df9cff\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003783\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002204a0bd46c97c9fdd02f3e729c1df9cff\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (12:01)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Just responding to the Minister\u2019s comments around interim limits, you know, they\u2019re a stepping stone, and yet, stepping stones would be within the plan time frames. The fact is, with these 10-year limits, they are at the edge of the 10-year planning cycles. So I\u2019m not sure how that is possibly an improvement and how they are stepping stones when they are at the edge of the time line that is actually available. So I\u2019m really interested to hear the Minister\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003784\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022153d2c1b1ab4e3a312da6ff060aed226\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve answered that question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003785\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229804d93c665a219d7c07824454fad049\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM\u003C/span\u003E: So you\u2019re comfortable with just pushing out?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003786\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f49a8dc3c6e9ae81fca7f6361528b959\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: They\u2019re interim. They\u2019re interim limits.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003787\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022684f603c46110b4da936c71268928a67\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM\u003C/span\u003E: So take the example, Minister, of the changes in Plan Change 1 in the Waikato so that plan will be in place in, say 2033. Your explanation documents make that clear. That will have an interim limit of 2043.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003788\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWhy are you shaking your head, Minister? That is the actual implications of what you\u2019re proposing here. I\u2019m not sure why he\u2019s shaking\u2014why are you shaking your head, Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022924846b7e8651c41e7659fb8ef05cfe9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003789\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022924846b7e8651c41e7659fb8ef05cfe9\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:02)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m not going to say anything.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022053f23a0bad92d984d38ef96d3488ce4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003790\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022053f23a0bad92d984d38ef96d3488ce4\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (12:02)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Yes, I don\u2019t know what\u2019s happening with the shaking of the head, either. But when I was just talking about clause 4 and the purpose, and the Minister said, \u201CI don\u2019t know why you guys weren\u2019t listening in select committee. The whole point is not to have a purpose really.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003791\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWell, we were listening in select committee. And we did listen to the advice of our independent KC\u2014that is, a very fancy lawyer. And we did listen to many submissions on this topic as well, and they told us\u2014and it does go into Part 2, which are the goals, as well. But that relationship between the two Acts, between the two purposes, between the goals, sets up the whole regime for failure. It is a hot mess.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003792\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat hot mess is going to result in exactly what the Minister doesn\u2019t want, and that is endless litigation. It is going to be great for resource management lawyers, and no one else. Oh, no\u2014it will be good for polluters as well. That\u2019s who this is going to be good for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003793\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m surprised that the Minister is refusing to engage with that point: that the select committee heard advice after advice that his purpose clauses, his framework purpose clauses, and his hot list of goals in two different Acts, they won\u2019t do what his stated objective is, which is to reduce litigation. He said, as a counterfactual, I guess, \u201COh look, the Resource Management Act had a whole lot of litigation around its purpose clause.\u201D And that is correct; I do not disagree with the Minister. There was a lot of litigation around the purpose clause of the Resource Management Act (RMA) and it is now settled.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003794\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo if the Minister really wants to avoid court action, he could import the purpose clause of the RMA. He could import \u201Csustainable management\u201D and words like \u201Cwellbeing\u201D and \u201Cfuture generations\u201D. That could come into this legislation, if he really wants to reduce litigation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003795\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOf course, I remember being in that Chair that the Minister is in over three years ago and members, who were then on this side of the Chamber, were ridiculing any changes in language that we made to the purposes of the Natural and Built Environment Act because it was going to create a whole lot of litigation, they said. That was their main argument. The argument they gave was that it was too long. These were the two substantive arguments that I heard against the Natural and Built Environment Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, he is going in totally the opposite direction. So how is it\u2014has he got advice that the select committee did not see that somehow, magically, all the fancy lawyers are wrong, and that, in fact, there will be no work for them to do and that litigation will reduce because this purpose clause is so weak?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022866076fd26694cba55280d71bd513010\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003797\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022866076fd26694cba55280d71bd513010\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:06)\u003C/span\u003E: The easier answer to that is that the funnel design, that is the design of this bill and also the Planning Bill comes out of the work by Janette Campbell who chaired the expert advisory group alongside other Resource Management Act (RMA) practitioners, planners, there was a freshwater expert and a housing expert on the committee, on the group who did.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003798\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI appreciate the member\u2019s got a view, and I respect her, obviously, as a former resource management lawyer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003799\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ec8bfaf7d0cfc861ced612b3854d4e62\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s not my view.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003800\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222b0439cd3beebda5498817dbc42529de\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, I know that. I\u2019m just making the point that I respect her view and the views of others, but I respectfully disagree. And there are plenty of people who will say that as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003801\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019re deliberately trying to\u2014I mean, if you just go back to the beginning, the RMA\u2019s approach to very broad purpose clause and the litigation over it, which she accepts has happened, has not worked. So after 30 years, time to try something new. What we\u2019ve gone for is a framework-based approach, a descriptive clause, in which we don\u2019t have all of the debate up in clause 3 of this ginormous statute, which dictates everything else that happens down at an individual consenting level. You should not have to go and prove that you\u2019re complying with 14 different national policy statements, some of which conflict, and regional policy statements and have debate with your local council about whether or not doing simple things complies with clause 13 of some bill or Act you\u2019ve never heard of.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003802\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe point is to design the funnel. We\u2019ve talked about this at length. Start with a purpose clause, which doesn\u2019t do very much; goals that govern the setting of the national direction; and then the combined plans, land use plans, natural environment plans. Below that, down at an individual consenting level, standards are there to help along the journey.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003803\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is, I guess, just like a fundamental disagreement. I haven\u2019t heard the member, who\u2019s asked multiple questions about this\u2014I haven\u2019t heard her outline an alternative approach to that. I suppose the Natural and Built Environment Act was an alternative approach, alongside the Spatial Planning Act. But as the member adverts to in her own remarks just then, one of our criticisms in Opposition was that that approach was just reiterating and repeating the same mistakes of the RMA.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003804\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI appreciate there\u2019s a legislative architectural design difference here, which is important. But we stand by the new approach we\u2019re taking, which has been based on extensive advice from not just the expert advisory group, but also extensive advice from a very hard-working team at Ministry for the Environment and now Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022c0b72e51ac33e534e20a9a66573ec722\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003805\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c0b72e51ac33e534e20a9a66573ec722\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (12:08)\u003C/span\u003E: In response to that, then, is the Minister saying that the Resource Management Act (RMA) purpose, the litigation\u2014we both accept that there\u2019s been a lot of litigation around that. Is he saying that that has not now been resolved? That it remains unresolved?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003806\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve been talking in this House recently about the King Salmon case, and it seems very much the purpose, and where the purpose sits within the RMA, has been resolved if you have those higher order documents, then you do not need to go back to the purpose.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003807\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Minister says, \u201CWell, I haven\u2019t heard anything from you.\u201D Well, he should read my Amendment Papers, for a start. I need to start this part of the contribution by saying: I totally agree that one of the major problems we have in our system at the moment is that too much of the activity is consent by consent. We were trying to change that in our reforms as well. That is a problem. There\u2019s no disagreement about that. We do need to have a much more efficient system that moves those trade-off decisions up away from consent by consent, into the plans, into the national direction. That I totally agree on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003808\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHowever, where my amendments come in is on the advice of all these people that came to the Environment Committee, and that is to have a stronger purpose that informs how the legislation is to work, and goals that have some semblance of a hierarchy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003809\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBecause at the moment, and I\u2019ve done that\u2014we\u2019ll get to that in the next part. It\u2019s a very inelegant way of doing it, and I\u2019m very happy to, if anyone else wants to do amendments on that\u2014very happy to change the approach. But the objective is to not have decisions at the consent level going back to any purpose statement, any goals, anything like that, because it should come down the system of the national direction and the plans so that the consents don\u2019t need to get involved in that discussion, that argument.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003810\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe problem with these bills and what the Minister was just talking about is that it is ministerial discretion that informs all of that hierarchy. All of that conflict goes to the ministerial discretion. So that then will sit at the top of the system, and if that gets wrong, then it will come down\u2014it funnels down like a spinning top, you move the spinning top around, and what happens when it wobbles? The whole thing falls over. So that is a problem with this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003811\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is not me speaking from a policy position of \u201COh, we need to change the legislation to do better for waterways.\u201D I\u2019d like to do that as well, but I\u2019m putting that to one side now. This is just an efficiency systems issue. The Minister has not dealt with it, and it\u2019s a real problem. We\u2019ve had expert after expert saying this, and I think he should consider some of my amendments which, as I said, I\u2019m happy to have them amended. They are suggestions of how to fix this structural problem with this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u00220d79715d8054e24bc05a9f9752fa8692\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003812\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220d79715d8054e24bc05a9f9752fa8692\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (12:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to pick up specifically on clause 8, \u201CTreaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi\u201D, and clauses 9 and 10. This is about upholding Treaty settlements and the Crown\u2019s obligations in this space.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003813\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThroughout the select committee process, we heard incredibly strong submissions from iwi and hap\u016B, from post-settlement entities, about how offensive\u2014the word that I think Waikato-Tainui used was how the pushing through of these bills would \u201Ceviscerate\u201D Crown-M\u0101ori relationships. A big part of that was the fact that the bills would be rushed through, as they have been, and so many provisions in them have such serious implications for Treaty settlements in particular, let alone implications for the broader environment and the connection of mana whenua with te taiao, the environment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo what I\u2019m really interested in is: why was it not the case that the Government took seriously those submissions and actually held this off, given how serious the implications are, to get to a point with iwi-M\u0101ori where there was much more of a collective drive to actually work together on making this a functional system? Because throughout all of this bill\u2014and the Planning Bill is the same, but it actually at least has some decent bits in it\u2014we\u2019re seeing total dysfunction. We even heard today at Environment Committee\u2014Te R\u016Bnanga o Ng\u0101i Tahu were presenting on a different bill, the Conservation Amendment Bill, but even there, they referenced how offensive these bills have been in terms of their exercise of rangatiratanga in their rohe.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003815\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, to make some form of basic amendment, my colleague H\u016Bhana Lyndon has Amendment Paper 748 to introduce some basic strong direction to give effect to Te Tiriti that is consistent with that from the Natural and Built Environment Act in 2023. We know that this is a better place to be in because it actually had some form of buy in from iwi M\u0101ori. I\u2019d really like to hear the Minister\u2019s response to that in particular. If he wants to respond now, I can wait until I go to the next one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00223311d70b48e27a2606669b795b144f73\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003816\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223311d70b48e27a2606669b795b144f73\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:16)\u003C/span\u003E: I don\u2019t have a huge amount more to say than what I\u2019ve already said, which is: we\u2019ve worked really hard to be very particular about the role of M\u0101ori in the planning system and the environment system in the new bills. We specifically and very deliberately did not go for what I\u2019ve called a \u201Cgeneric Treaty principles clause\u201D. As I\u2019ve said repeatedly both inside the House and outside the House, Parliament\u2019s failure to actually articulate what it is trying to do is partly what\u2019s led to the angst and difficulties that we\u2019ve experienced in that whole debate. So there is a Treaty clause in this bill, but it\u2019s not a generic Treaty principles clause in which we hand it over to the courts and say, \u201CGood luck\u201D. We\u2019ve actually been really clear about what the role of iwi M\u0101ori is in the system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003817\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to settlements, which is a related but separate issue, I take issue with the idea that this bill\u2019s been rushed through. The bill is having its committee stage under urgency, but the bill spent a considerable length of time at the Environment Committee; there were endless submissions that they did a really good job working their way through. The second reading was a few weeks ago. We\u2019ve now got the committee stage, and when they\u2019re eventually done, we\u2019ll get on to the third reading. It\u2019s just followed a standard, ordinary parliamentary process. I accept the bills are complicated and they\u2019re important, but I resist the idea that they are being rushed through, in the same way that I resist the idea that they are \u201Ceviscerating\u201D M\u0101ori-Crown relations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003818\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFor example, we have reached agreements in relation to the preservation and upholding of settlements with the river iwi Te Ture Whaimana and, likewise, Ng\u0101ti Porou and the related arrangements to the Whanganui River. Those are listed in the bills. There\u2019s still a bit of work to do with other iwi, obviously, but this is not a problem that is new to this Government. This same problem afflicted the previous Government, to be honest, when it came to the Natural and Built Environment Act and the Spatial Planning Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003819\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe great challenge is how you give effect to settlements that were signed in the age of the Resource Management Act (RMA)\u2014so the planning and the environmental statute\u2014and you\u2019re changing the underlying statutes. As I said in the previous debate, there are some people who say, \u201CWell, that\u2019s just the way it is. You\u2019ve locked in formaldehyde the RMA.\u201D That can\u2019t be true as a proposition of law, and it can\u2019t be true in principle.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003820\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo we are changing the underlying statute, which is fine. Then the question is: well, how do you make sure that the Crown\u2019s upholding its settlements? It\u2019s actually in the coalition documents between the three parties that make up the Government, that we uphold Treaty settlements. They are very solemn legal agreements that the Crown has entered into, and that\u2019s why clause 9 is there to say, \u201CCrown to seek to enter agreements to uphold Treaty settlement redress or arrangement\u201D, \u201CThe Crown must,\u201D etc. And then there\u2019s clause 10, which means that Treaty settlement redress will operate with the same or equivalent effect, to the greatest extent possible.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003821\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, obviously, that\u2019s a judgment as to what that means. It\u2019s a contextual-based judgment; it\u2019s a fact-based judgment as to the precise circumstances you\u2019re talking about. And there\u2019s a bit of work to do around that, but it\u2019s a best-endeavours, good-faith legal obligation on the Crown, and decision makers operating under the new statute, to make sure that we\u2019re upholding Treaty settlements. I\u2019ve spent a considerable amount of time talking to iwi leaders and talking to rangatira and iwi M\u0101ori about this issue. If you go back to Lord Cooke\u2019s dicta, good faith counts for a lot, and that\u2019s what we\u2019re trying to do. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022 data-id=\u0022cd169c72ef45d4fe2e34edb3d45b72e4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003822\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cd169c72ef45d4fe2e34edb3d45b72e4\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert) (12:20)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. First of all, I\u2019d just like to say I\u2019m thrilled that I\u2019m an employment lawyer. I have been trying to come to grips with this particular area of law, and so I want to ask about the clauses that talk about the schedules. There is a decision that\u2019s been made under clause 5 that the schedules are actually references straight to the schedules in the Planning Act. I wondered how unusual that was, as a method, rather than it having its own schedules, because I haven\u2019t come across it before. I appreciate the area is complex, but it doesn\u2019t seem good practice that you would have to go beyond this Act to find schedules that relate and are binding upon it. My understanding is the second part schedule, 11, of the Planning Act is also relevant, and that will be because of transitions around the Resource Management Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003823\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI just want to ask what process the Minister had been through in terms of deciding that those schedules would be in another Act rather than perhaps even arduously copied and pasted into this one, and whether that was a practice that was followed from other pieces of legislation. I appreciate they\u2019re related to each other, but this is highly unusual. We\u2019re trying to allow people to be able to get to grips with the law without the involvement of lawyers, and I\u2019m finding it rather difficult.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022b78e8cc59b547889c5bb15206e5839cb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003824\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b78e8cc59b547889c5bb15206e5839cb\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:21)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, fair enough; it\u2019s a good question. The advice is it\u2019s unusual but efficient, and it is, because it means\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003825\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b685a9e514d2ca5dd019610ce9431c0f\u0022\u003EH\u016Bhana Lyndon\u003C/span\u003E: For whom?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003826\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002202ed31948c7f48cc0b545e621f36e3ca\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it\u2019s efficient for everybody.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003827\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ca241b6616d4ef9830ea44c6761abd3\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Not efficient for the users.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003828\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002235afa1400c4b2fade7f09317c37b7808\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, hang on a minute. Come on, you know how most people read law these days. No one goes and looks up the actual physical statute\u2014only old fuddy-duddies have physical copies of statutes in their offices. The vast bulk of lawyers will look at it online. You\u2019ve got the cross-tabs and the clicks, and you just click the schedule and it brings up the Planning Act schedule. The Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) has built a whole new website, and it\u2019s meeting rave reviews, by the way, I\u2019m told\u2014the new PCO legislative reading thing, or whatever\u2019s it\u2019s called.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003829\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228fa8c9ea1d220cee6609a0c2aa31d75b\u0022\u003EHon Dr Duncan Webb\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, sit down, Attorney-General.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003830\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002204964ee0893b213d369326af12f1ddb9\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, OK\u2014all right. But, anyway, my point is that it\u2019s efficient, so we don\u2019t have to repeat it all. It\u2019s unusual, but the short answer is, to be honest, I didn\u2019t have a role in that. Policy decisions are made by Ministers in Cabinet, but the drafting is done by the legal beagles\u2014the excellent drafters\u2014at the Parliamentary Counsel Office. Thankfully, I am not a legislative drafter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u002225351a29c82eb63a6838b277c0a903df\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002225351a29c82eb63a6838b277c0a903df\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (12:23)\u003C/span\u003E: I just want to start on a positive note for this contribution\u2014it won\u2019t last for long. I too am very pleased that I am not a parliamentary drafter, and would like to congratulate those parliamentary drafters for the amazing work that they do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003832\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI wanted to go back to some remarks that the Minister was making about the equivalence clauses and in response to the Treaty clause\u2014so clauses 8 and 9\u2014before moving on to new clause 10A. He used some formaldehyde metaphor that I\u2019m not sure I totally understand, but his point was, I think, that if you have a Treaty settlement and that Treaty settlement refers to clauses in the Resource Management Act (RMA), you must still be able to change the RMA, despite the fact that those clauses are mentioned in the Treaty settlement, and I agree with that proposition. Then he said that that was an issue that the last Government had as well, and that is true. However, the difference between this equivalence and our equivalence is that all of the other provisions in the legislation undermine what the RMA was doing in terms of both environmental protections\u2014and we\u2019ll get into that limits argument later\u2014but also M\u0101ori involvement provisions throughout the different pieces of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003833\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo we have that change at clause 8. There\u2019s a specific requirement, but there\u2019s no equivalent to the RMA, which is to take into account the principles of the Treaty. We have \u201Cgive effect to\u201D, but \u201Ctake into account\u201D is gone. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003834\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESection 6(e) of the RMA, which talks about M\u0101ori interests in land and water and taonga, is not replicated fully in these reforms. There is not the equivalent of Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe. Section 33 transfers have gone. Joint partnerships\u2014they\u2019ve gone too. All of these instruments that are in the RMA and that were in our reforms, they have gone. When the Minister says, \u201CWell, equivalence is an issue that both Labour had to deal with and this Government had to deal with.\u201D, that was a very different context, and context does matter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003835\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe have had many iwi submitters say that the equivalence cannot work with those wider settings of these laws, which is why either you need to do a whole lot of new section 10As\u2014well, that\u2019s only for settled iwi\u2014or you need to bring back those provisions. You need to bring back section 6(3), you need to bring back the Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe provisions, and you need to bring back the section 33 transfers, but, instead, that is not what this Government is doing. My question to the Minister on this point is: does he agree that this legislation goes backwards from the Resource Management Act on M\u0101ori participation? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003836\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn our reforms as well\u2014which were very different from these\u2014mana whenua representatives were at the table in the making of the plans, and, of course, that has all gone backwards, as well. The RMA might be here with M\u0101ori participation and we were over here, and my question is: does he agree that this legislation is on the other side of that participation spectrum, which goes to equivalence\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003837\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229fb58dbaf16e4dea5065547eb80a0eb3\u0022\u003EHon Dr Duncan Webb\u003C/span\u003E: The \u201Censhittification\u201D of it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003838\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002299590e15d122c419f306ca970479d4c9\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: I won\u2019t say that. That\u2019s my question and I\u2019ll come to another one in a minute.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022d1a600b2911f4da8e8a1c4910866c4e7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003839\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d1a600b2911f4da8e8a1c4910866c4e7\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:27)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, that is a judgment that others will make; it\u2019s not one that I intend to make. All I\u2019ll say is what I\u2019ve said two or three times now, which is that we\u2019re trying to make it clear where everyone\u2019s role in the system is and the areas that should be focused on. I think we\u2019ve been pretty clear about what those roles are\u2014far clearer than the Resource Management Act and other bills in the past.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003840\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225becb79cd90c820d6e28591fbf286f92\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Just for anyone watching at home, with the Minister\u2019s frequent references to Madam Chair, I can assure them I\u2019m a Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003841\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228052089791c383fad6314574b74b09ce\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, sorry\u2014sorry, Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c4ca4cc5411f4905b1e974d906283186\u0022 data-id=\u0022406eb011c54c74fade8664f9990be03c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003842\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4ca4cc5411f4905b1e974d906283186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022406eb011c54c74fade8664f9990be03c\u0022\u003EMARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Tai Tokerau) (12:28)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I might be one of those fuddy-duddies, believe it or not, that does have a hard copy of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act actually at my house, and so I do fit in there somewhere\u2014just as a comment to the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003843\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002211e9e1f818754d97b60bba4b18e5dc03\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220e73eb908e12444fe510edeb43bb4e79\u0022\u003EHon Mark Patterson\u003C/span\u003E: The Luddites strike back!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003844\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4ca4cc5411f4905b1e974d906283186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227b505c859c5271e17379cfd88028fe8c\u0022\u003EMARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI\u003C/span\u003E: Ha! Te Tiriti o Waitangi settlements piece\u2014I do want to make some comments and then ask a question. Mr Chair, you may have heard that I used an expression in the previous debate. The feelings of that saying make me want to make that statement, but I won\u2019t, because I think it\u2019s probably already settled in the minds of people sitting in the Chamber today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003845\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut with \u201CM\u0101ori interests\u201D and words like that, the implications will fall differently on M\u0101ori hap\u016B and iwi. I do hear, Minister, an intent in you when you\u2019re responding, and I am responding to that in a kindly way\u2014at this point, anyway\u2014because the context matters hugely, and I just heard Rachel Brooking make that same statement. It matters hugely and I hear that you\u2019ve expressed that you\u2019re meeting with many rangatira and iwi leaders, and, I think those are good things. But, honestly, the bigger context of this is that the last three years have been absolutely horrible for M\u0101ori\u2014just horrible..\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003846\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe thing that\u2019s missing the most, most, most\u2014which, I think, is fundamental to what you all need, and we all need\u2014is trust. And it\u2019s just simply not there. It has been at its lowest\u2014in fact, not only for M\u0101ori but for many, but definitely for M\u0101ori. Definitely for M\u0101ori, the trust is so, so low, because the harm has been an accumulated harm. When you\u2019re dealing with those dynamics, the responses, Minister, that you may have gotten, and feel a little bit of comfort in as you move forward this way, is, I would imagine, even just the tolerance that M\u0101ori have, to be able to have certain conversations and to get something moving. But there\u2019s such a high level of tolerance on this side, or this battle, and I\u2019m talking about hap\u016B, and I\u2019m talking about iwi M\u0101ori, and M\u0101ori communities in general, Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003847\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe trust is so low. My question, then, is: is now the time to do this? Is now the right time to bring this through? I mean, honestly, is it? I\u2019m keen to get a real sense of it from you, personally as well as politically, because I think that\u2019s what our wh\u0101nau are saying, and this is what our hap\u016B are saying when I go back to our marae committees, and they\u2019re like, \u201CMeno, we cannot trust virtually anything that\u2019s been said.\u201D We might nod and go, \u201CLook, yeah, let\u2019s get going.\u201D, but, in fact, in the deeper conversations that are had when the time is given to those, Minister, I can assure you that trust is so low and tolerance, on our side, is so, so high. Is this the right time? Is now the time? Can I leave that there? Thank you for that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00226638b1b4dd7e537444e3142de2ede45f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003848\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226638b1b4dd7e537444e3142de2ede45f\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:31)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam\u2014Mr Chair. A couple of\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003849\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002265865852cfcf1885ca7a46675171f9f4\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: You did it again!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003850\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251d13838fd447c79ae523cb71167ff0e\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: I know, I know, sorry\u2014Mr Chair. A couple of brief comments. The question was: is now the right time to do this? The answer, in the Government\u2019s view, is yes. Our planning system has held New Zealand back for far too long, and it\u2019s held iwi M\u0101ori back from using their whenua for far too long. Some of the more enjoyable conversations I have with iwi around the country is on the strictures of the Resource Management Act (RMA) that are getting in the way of development. As my good friend Matua Tuku says to me all the time, he says, \u201CYou know, we\u2019ve got economic interests too. We\u2019re farmers. We\u2019ve got developments.\u201D You know, they\u2019ve got Ruakura\u2014they\u2019ve known all too well about the RMA. I mean, ask Ng\u0101i Tahu about Hananui Aquaculture. The last Government set aside some settlement area for a salmon farm, and there was a big show and tell and song and dance about it in 2021, I think it was, and everyone got very excited. Then they rocked off to the Environment Court to get a consent to do the salmon farm and they got turned down.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003851\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EDo you know, since we did the commercial aquaculture settlement back in 2006, I think it was, not a single area of M\u0101ori commercial aquaculture has been developed; not a single one. Not one. When I discovered that, I got furious about it, and, frankly, I think it\u2019s a disgrace; I think it\u2019s absolutely disgraceful. Just as an aside, I find it baffling that the Waitangi Tribunal is spending endless years on the kaupapa M\u0101ori housing inquiry, for example\u2014and I\u2019m the Minister of Housing and I know all too well about issues we have with housing in this country, including those affecting M\u0101ori\u2014we don\u2019t need five years\u2019 worth of work and endless millions of dollars spent on it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003852\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat is a contemporary breach in New Zealand? Twenty years of the Crown saying, \u201CYeah, great, aquaculture is amazing and we\u2019ll help you settle your claims and develop these areas.\u201D, and 20 years on, the planning system has not let that happen. That, to me, is a contemporary breach of the Treaty. It\u2019s disgusting\u2014disgusting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003853\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnyway, the good news is that Hananui Aquaculture, which has hundreds of millions of dollars of salmon farms in Rakiura / Stewart Island, has now got fast-track consent. Everyone said it was going to be a disaster for M\u0101ori and a disaster for the environment; it\u2019s now got fast-track consent and they\u2019ll be getting on with that. So it\u2019s great news.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003854\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut here\u2019s my challenge: how do we design a system so that there\u2019s not just Hananui, and that the legitimate aspirations of iwi at the top of the South, for example, around aquaculture, are given effect to? And there\u2019s others as well: Tainui at Ruakura, and the developments in the Waikato. You think about T\u016Bwharetoa; think about Ng\u0101i Tahu and its various different takiw\u0101. I don\u2019t want to list them specifically, but any post-settlement governance entity with aspirations\u2014as they all have, when I meet with them\u2014to look after their people and provide jobs and prosperity: how do we give effect to those aspirations? The answer is so often, as it is with everybody else, not just iwi M\u0101ori, is about the planning system, which has not allowed for enough growth and development and prosperity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003855\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy message to M\u0101ori is the same as it is for everybody else, which is that we can have a planning system that is far more enabling of growth; we just have to choose it, and that\u2019s what this Government is choosing to do. We think we\u2019ve got the balance right when it comes to Ma\u014Dri interests, which the members can see laid out in clauses 8, 9, and 10, and it\u2019s the same as it was in the Planning Bill, and we\u2019ll continue to stand by those decisions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229a3b0728faaf6b078a16e9c2f1483f2e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: I know it was a very broad-based, contextual question, and a justified broad response, but henceforth we need to get just a little bit tighter, please, on these questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u0022eb0299a87d012f15730924aa3c453fb7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003857\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022eb0299a87d012f15730924aa3c453fb7\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (12:36)\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s me\u2014thank you, Mr Chair. I actually have quite a narrow question\u2014in fact, very narrow, around clause 6. I just can\u2019t quite get my head around clause 6(2)(a). This is an important clause, \u201CAct binds the Crown\u201D, and so the Crown, in its activities, is subject to the constraints of this bill. So that\u2019s subclause (1)\u2014\u201CThis Act binds the Crown except as provided [below].\u201D Then subclause (2) states, \u201CThis Act does not apply to any work or activity of the Crown that\u2014(a) is a use of land within the meaning given in section 17;\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003858\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo I went to have a look at clause 17, and it doesn\u2019t give a meaning of a use of land. It gives a description of restrictions on land use. Subclause (2)(a), to my mind, just does not marry with clause 17, because clause 17 says, essentially, that a person can\u2019t use land in a manner that contravenes a national rule or a rule in a plan or a proposed plan, unless it\u2019s expressly allowed by a permit or other exceptions. But nowhere does it\u2014I can\u2019t see the body of land use, or the group of uses, that is exempt under section (2)(a). It is quite important, because if an authority is going to, essentially, prosecute the Crown or an instrument of the Crown, or a Crown entity, for breaching something in this Act, except the use within the meaning given in clause 17, we need to say\u2014it\u2019s just the language is terrible\u2014that the use of the land, within the meaning in clause 17, is this use.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003859\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI see you\u2019ve got advice. Either it\u2019s just clumsy drafting and it\u2019s going to have to come out a bit later on, or something\u2019s gone wrong.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022f5d67594e202f5b555e740bdbb7d81cd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003860\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f5d67594e202f5b555e740bdbb7d81cd\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (12:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I do want to respond to some of the comments made by the Minister, which may be more wide-ranging, but he did make them. And that is about the Hananui aquaculture, near Rakiura / Stewart Island. I think what the Minister was doing was he was saying he was angry about aquaculture settlements, and that\u2019s a good thing to be concerned about. But he was using this as an example\u2014and the Minister does this a lot, using a strawman\u2014to say, \u201CWell, because it didn\u2019t get consent under the RMA, that means that the RMA is terrible and it needs to end and we need to replace it.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003861\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI would like the Minister to consider whether, in fact, that was made under a version of a fast-track consent, and whether some of the speed of that decision making led to a decision that said, \u201CWell, we don\u2019t have enough information on biodiversity and the impact on the hoiho.\u201D, which is a very threatened, very special penguin, particularly as they like to hang out in \u014Ctepoti, in my electorate. We\u2019re concerned about that, and there were time constraints in that decision-making process, and also there were some landscape effects.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003862\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I know that these bills, in combination, will change the landscape effects, and I\u2019m not arguing with the Minister on that in this case\u2014but if there was a real question about biodiversity, is he saying that that first application should have been approved, even though the time limits and everything else pointed to issues with that biodiversity, and that goes to this Act, because this is the Natural Environment Bill, and was that decision made under the Resource Management Act (RMA)? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003863\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnd he\u2019s then talking about his fast track, which is not this legislation. So is he saying, as well, that he thinks that type of application that another body felt had some issues with the amount of information provided, and I\u2019m not commenting on whether that was right or wrong\u2014that that information wouldn\u2019t be required under this legislation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003864\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022faebbb285a17e16f27b62265a9de9769\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: No, I\u2019m not saying that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003865\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223c199a2999673e74c29b946c0c18282a\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it sounded like the Minister might have been.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003866\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnyway, I\u2019m going to turn to a different issue, and that is that the Minister was saying, in relation to a question from Lan Pham, that, in fact, this legislation wasn\u2019t rushed, and \u201CWhy is she saying that things are rushed?\u201D But we are looking at an Amendment Paper that we got late last week, and there are significant changes in this Amendment Paper. So I do challenge him on saying, \u201COh, there\u2019s absolutely been no rush.\u201D We are here, of course, in committee stage, and we were sitting till midnight last night and we are here at 9\u00A0o\u2019clock in the morning. So this is going through a process, and I don\u2019t think he should diminish the amount of changes that have been made subsequent to the Environment Committee report back.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003867\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI have two questions on new clause 10A, \u201CTe Ture Whaimana\u201D in Amendment Paper 710. I accept what we\u2019ve heard, that there\u2019s been some talks with the Waikato River iwi to implement this. I have no problem. But the question is: should there be more of these clause 10As? I know there\u2019s some Ng\u0101ti Porou, and I think the Minister mentioned the Whanganui River\u2014I\u2019m not sure where that is. But is this the device, is this the mechanism, that needs to get round the problem that I was talking about earlier over the equivalence, when these bills are not equivalent even to the RMA; is the mechanism more of these specific clauses like 10A? That\u2019s one question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003868\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA second question is in relation to\u2014I haven\u2019t got, still, any amendments coming, but there were amendments in the other bill, two plan changes that relate to these water bodies, how much pollution can go into the river that\u2019s under control. That is also rushed. That is going to my \u201Crushed\u201D point. How those changes interact with these new provisions, I think, is important. I understand that that was in the other bill. However, I\u2019m going to talk about it now very briefly. Because Schedule 1 refers back to the schedules in the Planning Bill, I think I am able to refer to it. We have these changes to those plan changes, and we have heard, on this side of the Chamber, that that river authority is not happy with the pause on a plan change that would reduce pollution. So if you pause the plan change, then that\u2019s going to increase pollution. It\u2019s a very basic way of thinking about it, but I think it\u2019s accurate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003869\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Minister has come to us with this 10A and said, \u201CWe\u2019ve had these sensible discussions, as we should, in good faith.\u201D\u2014good, good, good. But then, on the other hand, we are saying, \u201COh, but all the regulation is going to lead to more pollution, which is going to undermine this very agreement.\u201D How in the world does that work?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003870\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are a number of questions there; one is: should there be more 10A equivalents; the second one is: is this pause on the plan change going to result in more pollution and does that, in effect, undermine this 10A? He didn\u2019t answer me if he agrees that\u2014well, maybe he can confirm whether he says to my question of \u201CDoes this legislation go backwards from the RMA in terms of M\u0101ori participation?\u201D, \u201CWell, it\u2019s more specific in the clause 8.\u201D Sure, but it doesn\u2019t have a whole lot of other things in it. So does he agree it goes backwards, with my premise?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003871\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnd then if he wants to comment on whether his strawman of the Rakiura aquaculture\u2014what exactly it is in this legislation, not the fast track, that would enable that activity and if that is to do with reducing consents and conditions and considerations of biodiversity or not. That\u2019s very important. I love the hoiho.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022ec843e56078677bb480cd4d7b022c822\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003872\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ec843e56078677bb480cd4d7b022c822\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:46)\u003C/span\u003E: Just on Rakiura, I wasn\u2019t saying it should have been granted consent under the Resource Management Act (RMA). I\u2019m not the factual decision-maker on that. I was just making the generic point that there is a deep irony about everyone making a song and dance about the commercial aquaculture settlement of 2021, or whenever it was, and then it got turned down under the RMA. I\u2019m not saying it should have been\u2014you know, I\u2019m not super familiar with the case; I\u2019m just making the point that we want to see development of aquaculture, and people involved in that industry, including Ng\u0101i Tahu themselves and other groups, would say to you that the RMA has been a massive stumbling block, which is partly why we\u2019re changing it. I wasn\u2019t trying to pre-decide the outcome or anything like that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003873\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to Duncan Webb\u2019s question, I\u2019m advise that the provisions he was talking about are rollovers from the RMA directly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003874\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to Te Ture Whaimana, new clause 10A is included because of the Kiingitanga Accord requirement to consider Te Ture Whaimana clauses. It\u2019s a highly complex and unique arrangement. I\u2019m not considering any more specifically like 10A.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003875\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to some of the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s other questions, it is fair to say that the river iwi are not happy about the changes we\u2019ve made around Plan Change 1 (PC1), but the Government is in a genuine bind on this. I met with the river iwi many times over this issue. We\u2019re in a genuine bind because we do wish to change the resource management system and planning system, and we wish to do that in an expeditious and practical way, and, of course PC1 is coming to the end of its process just as the system is changing. So the path we\u2019ve taken is, essentially, a middle path, just to say, \u201CWe\u2019ll just taihoa for a bit, hold off on that, while we change the underlying system architecture but use the work that\u2019s already been done on PC1 as the basis for the new natural environment plan in the new system.\u201D Not everyone is happy about that, I accept that. Some people are very happy about it; other people are not. It\u2019s one of those invidious decisions that ends up on Ministers\u2019 desks and Governments\u2019 desks that you have to make. We stand by that decision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u002206dca05bfddec2262793beb2072f752c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003876\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002206dca05bfddec2262793beb2072f752c\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (12:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to acknowledge the Minister responsible for RMA Reform\u2019s changes to the bills when it comes to Te Ture Whaimana, because I think, you know, they are, at least, this bottom-line semi-safeguard, if you can kind of call them that, given the broader picture of the retreat from environmental protections. But it is quite extraordinary to hold that with, as the Minister mentioned, the kibosh that the Government has just put on Plan Change 1. I acknowledge that the Minister is saying, you know, this can all be picked up in the new system, but it\u2019s very clear that the time frames on that are going to get us nowhere fast, and, in fact, it\u2019s likely we\u2019re going to go backwards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003877\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat I want to move on to is new clause 10B in Amendment Paper 710. These are the rules that control fishing. Now, this, again, was part of the last-minute amendments that came into place just at the end of last week. The implications, as far as I understand them, are that fishing impacts when it comes to indigenous biodiversity in the marine environment are now beyond the jurisdiction of councils being able to set rules to actually protect that marine biodiversity. It means that those places that have since put in place protections post the M\u014Dt\u012Bt\u012B decision are likely to have to have those revisited.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003878\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, what I\u2019m interested to hear from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform is what specifically happens to those areas with those existing marine protections? We\u2019re talking Northland, Bay of Plenty, and Marlborough. Do they remain in place, and once these new plans come in, do they have to then remove them or is there ability for them to somehow use something in the Acts to actually mean that they have some form of continuation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003879\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe aspect that I\u2019m really interested in hearing from the Minister about is that there\u2019s an argument that, instead of relying on the protections of these Planning and Natural Environment bills, we can instead rely on the Fisheries Act. Now, we\u2019ve seen demonstrated time and time again that it\u2019s often, usually, when fisheries are at the point of collapse when the Fisheries Act has enough impetus in it for things to actually change. It doesn\u2019t also deal with broader effects of fishing, such as natural character; it doesn\u2019t deal with life support and capacity, or the maintenance of indigenous biodiversity; and it has absolutely no relationship to climate change. So I\u2019m really keen to hear from the Minister because I know that the communities are reeling from this change.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00227068d99ffef5772fd9c69d86bbdef153\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003880\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227068d99ffef5772fd9c69d86bbdef153\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:51)\u003C/span\u003E: I can answer that question quite simply. Current council fishing controls in Northland, Bay of Plenty, and Marlborough will remain in place during the transition period until the new system comes online as part of their respective Resource Management Act (RMA) plans. Existing RMA plan change processes involving proposed fishing controls and plans that are not subject to plan stop will also continue to progress during the transition period.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022 data-id=\u00229aac23bd18d358554040824193a00e18\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003881\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229aac23bd18d358554040824193a00e18\u0022\u003ECATHERINE WEDD (National\u2014Tukituki) (12:52)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003882\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227eba6f223f53c269294e4afa6ba85ce2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: No, we\u2019re still going, and we\u2019re still getting new material. We haven\u2019t heard any repetition at all, but, members, we do need to be making sure it\u2019s new material.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00223f2e9a1f8333c200b8fecf87db78b4f0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003883\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223f2e9a1f8333c200b8fecf87db78b4f0\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (12:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. There was so much excitement in the House there, I may have misplaced which question I was going to ask. I think it was in relation, again, to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform\u2019s comment that things aren\u2019t rushed, and this amendment that we\u2019ve had very late in the piece relating to the Plan Change 1 and the Plan Change 2. Is it Plan Change 2? This comes through in terms of, as I noted before, schedule 1 of this bill that says, \u201CSee also Schedule 11 of the Planning Act 2025, which sets out amendments to the Resource Management Act and other legislation.\u201D, and that includes those plan stops that the Minister only introduced in an amendment on the day that we were starting the Planning Bill. This is very fresh and this is very rushed, and he was just speaking about it and saying, \u201CWell, we\u2019re taking a middle ground.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003884\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThese plans have been in development for years, and what they are fundamentally doing is to manage pollution and to stop pollution from going into the rivers. It\u2019s very simple. Now, the Minister says, \u201COh, well, they\u2019ll come on stream at some point in the future, just not now.\u201D Why I am worried is, why is there a need to put them on pause if, as he said is in his opening statement, this bill is going to allow a development within environmental limits? Those plan changes are about environmental limits in terms of what pollution there can be and what controls on it there are. Is he saying, either, that by pausing these plan changes pollution will increase, and if so, what is the time frame to stop that; or is he saying, \u201COh, these plan changes, they\u2019re not actually going to make any difference to pollution anyway, so we can just continue on.\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003885\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThese are these are important questions because my observation is that you\u2019ve had some very loud lobby groups say, \u201CWe don\u2019t like the direction of these plan changes. We\u2019re going to have to change some of the things that we do, so what we want to do is this cynical move that has happened time and time again throughout this Parliament.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003886\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis Government has stopped plans where it looked like they were going to deal with pollution, and this seems to be the case again at the last minute where the Government rolls in and says, \u201COh, look, we\u2019ve been lobbied.  There were going to be more controls on pollution. We\u2019ll just talk about a pause. We\u2019ll pause those controls on pollution.\u201D Will there ever be any controls and will the pollution increase in the meantime? My worry is that the answer to those questions is no, there will never be controls, and yes, the pollution will increase in the meantime. I would like the Minister to tell me why I\u2019m wrong.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022aeeca9986bf14d6cb9189a03988f9450\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003887\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022aeeca9986bf14d6cb9189a03988f9450\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:56)\u003C/span\u003E: Very briefly, I mean, what I just said before, at least twice, which is that the plan changes are coming to the end of their process, but the system is changing. The Government has to figure out a pragmatic way\u2014it\u2019s a bit like the plan stop processes. Some are relatively simple, they mesh well into the new system, we\u2019ve let them go through to the keeper and happen, but others are highly complicated. The Gisborne forestry plan change is extremely complex and complicated and will take five years to do. So rather than have people implement a new plan which has to be changed when this new system comes in, we\u2019ve tried to be pragmatic. I accept it\u2019s a bit messy on the way through. When you change a system for the first time in 30 years, it is, but we\u2019ve got to make pragmatic decisions here, and that\u2019s what we\u2019ve done.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003888\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022725abc134d8d1bea88785a0fd41f9cf6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the lunch break. The committee will resume following question time at 3 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterItalicsCentred\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 12.57 p.m. to 2 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003890\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHouse resumed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003891\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002253992eda8a8ffd3554deca327104f8f7\u0022\u003EMotions\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003892\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d671ad4e9ad2f85c9475d556b6301dbe\u0022\u003ENepal\u2014Flooding and Landslides\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022 data-id=\u002210e5819941f39ededa855795aedfb964\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002210e5819941f39ededa855795aedfb964\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) (14:00)\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate on the floods in Nepal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003894\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f9c58c0b7f3d107a8fec8b3d1f53722b\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There appears to be none.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003895\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225efc5d130bf11e6aae1c9b4bbc792b78\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat this House express its grave concern about the flooding and landslides in Nepal\u2019s Rasuwa District and the Nepal-China border area; extend its deepest condolences to all those affected; stand in solidarity with local authorities undertaking search and rescue operations in the affected areas; and support the Government\u2019s offer of New Zealand assistance, alongside international partners, once the requirements on the ground become clearer\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003896\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003897\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00229346c102041ba0a29e69e9cb2f22d26d\u0022\u003EOral Questions to Ministers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003898\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00222a75677279de723da85fedc548b5f10c\u0022\u003EChildren\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003899\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022fe703253ca1dd78414d86f56b55f365a\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 1\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b064dd56673f4c1cb11c1242823abb92\u0022 data-id=\u002248129725fbe18e715a0b7656a0a900ea\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003900\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b064dd56673f4c1cb11c1242823abb92\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002248129725fbe18e715a0b7656a0a900ea\u0022\u003ELAURA McCLURE (ACT) (14:01)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister for Children\u003C/span\u003E: What update can she provide on Oranga Tamariki\u2019s performance against her ministerial priorities?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e13c0cfff1694ee6966ced2df467878f\u0022 data-id=\u00221c6def46b0b2ab263c8c19e00210364f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003901\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e13c0cfff1694ee6966ced2df467878f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221c6def46b0b2ab263c8c19e00210364f\u0022\u003EHon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (14:01)\u003C/span\u003E: The latest Oranga Tamariki performance report shows steady progress. The report shows that 97 percent of children in care have been visited by their social worker within the targeted time. The speed of responding to critical and very urgent reports of concern has improved from 80\u00A0percent in quarter two to 87 percent in quarter three. This has been achieved while Oranga Tamariki continues to respond to historically high demand, with reports of concern increasing by 48 percent over the last two years. Caregiver satisfaction also remains strong, with a 4 percent increase in caregivers reporting that they are satisfied with the support from Oranga Tamariki, and fewer caregivers reporting they are considering stopping being a caregiver. Lastly, the number of children and young people with serious and persistent offending behaviour continues to trend down\u2014now at a 25\u00A0percent reduction since 2023, well exceeding the Government target of 15 percent by 2029.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003902\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b064dd56673f4c1cb11c1242823abb92\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fb65e10207e99a970742b0dfb5fc7243\u0022\u003ELaura McClure\u003C/span\u003E: Why is it important for children and young people that Oranga Tamariki performs well against these measures?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003903\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e13c0cfff1694ee6966ced2df467878f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ac0e9e8ee9649cd063cb0e44fbe6698\u0022\u003EHon KAREN CHHOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Oranga Tamariki is involved with the most vulnerable and at-risk children and young people in this country. New Zealanders expect our care and protection agency to ensure they are safe and cared for. Since becoming Minister, my number one focus has been on the safety and wellbeing of children. The evidence shows that regular social worker visits are one of the most important factors in keeping kids safe. Regular visits mean social workers can build trust and relationships and see firsthand how things are going in a child\u2019s life. Caregiver support is also particularly important. Even before I became a Minister, I heard of stories of caregivers telling me they did not feel supported by Oranga Tamariki. Caregivers open their hearts and homes to provide a safe, loving, stable environment for young people, and they deserve to be supported in their important work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003904\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b064dd56673f4c1cb11c1242823abb92\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bcbb8116e5b645a14cf1dbb962718d52\u0022\u003ELaura McClure\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister expect these performance measures to continue to improve?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003905\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e13c0cfff1694ee6966ced2df467878f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022107e472fd14c306f83dc792dc8bc3ee0\u0022\u003EHon KAREN CHHOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I do, particularly due to the extra investment and resources that this Government has put into Oranga Tamariki\u2014for example, new tools, like the new All About Me Plan, which gives young people more ability to have a say in their own care. This is the first step in a much larger upgrade of the case management technology used by front-line social workers. This technology upgrade, along with others, will soon be rolled out and it will strengthen performance by enabling better tracking of social worker visits and actions. Greater focus on early safety planning, alongside increased resourcing and technology improvements, should lead to even greater improvement in responding quickly to reports of concern.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003906\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b064dd56673f4c1cb11c1242823abb92\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ac02e7503b01d9203f453d4115eb0234\u0022\u003ELaura McClure\u003C/span\u003E: What other updates can the Minister provide on improvements at Oranga Tamariki?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003907\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e13c0cfff1694ee6966ced2df467878f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226e9f63a609d8f4993138dbf2ead0231a\u0022\u003EHon KAREN CHHOUR\u003C/span\u003E: There is an awful lot to list and I won\u2019t list them all now, but the last few years has seen a large investment in our front-line social workers and their training and development\u2014this includes the introduction of allied support worker roles, which frees up the front line to focus on their core social work. There has been significant work to improve safety in our youth justice residences; this includes everything from the basic stuff like renovating buildings that have not been properly maintained since they were built over 20 years ago, to improving the quality of staffing by introducing standard operating practices, improved recruitment and training, and introducing uniforms for staff. This improvement has been noted in reports from the Children\u2019s Commissioner-Mana Mokopuna, who visit and monitor youth justice residences. These reports give me confidence that, while there is still more work to do, we are on the right track.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003908\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002287e4788cfa78ffc69aae9f45e6eb00b3\u0022\u003EAuckland\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003909\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00222f54e774a19576ce26d28ff1dcf0df8c\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022083a816abbb847f0a99aff178b1bbba2\u0022 data-id=\u0022cf12baeb31dfe92e1122fcd1057070f3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022083a816abbb847f0a99aff178b1bbba2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cf12baeb31dfe92e1122fcd1057070f3\u0022\u003EHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader\u2014Labour) (14:04)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister for Auckland\u003C/span\u003E: Does he agree with Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown, \u201CI can point to very recent examples showing that the National Party, as part of the Government, is failing to deliver for Auckland\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022 data-id=\u0022afb5d4dba6b770bf155cfc888c5f3821\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003911\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022afb5d4dba6b770bf155cfc888c5f3821\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS (Minister for Auckland) (14:05)\u003C/span\u003E: No. This Government is delivering for Auckland, whether that\u2019s saving Auckland ratepayers almost $900 million on their water bills through Local Water Done Well, growing the Auckland economy by fast tracking ports at the Port of Auckland wharf expansion, or saving Aucklanders $4.5\u00A0billion by changing the earthquake-prone building rules. This Government is delivering for Auckland.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003912\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022083a816abbb847f0a99aff178b1bbba2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c5dcdaf3517554c1a4afb2e3c6a66d5a\u0022\u003EHon Carmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: Does he agree with Mayor Brown that the Auckland City Deal is \u201Cmeaningless if the Government cannot honour even a relatively modest commitment to explore an agreed proposal\u201D; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003913\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002278d51faf83a826be300b343093bdf7d3\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS\u003C/span\u003E: No, because we\u2019ve already delivered tangible outcomes as a result of the Auckland City Deal. It is a landmark deal that gets coordination between central government and local government to deliver for Auckland. That deal will make a positive impact for our largest city in this country. Examples of that include the opening of the new advanced technology innovation centre we did last Friday. This is going to be a game-changer in regards to innovation in the city of Auckland, which is the gateway to our country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003914\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022083a816abbb847f0a99aff178b1bbba2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022870bba91ceb8bc55419ad36b095f277d\u0022\u003EHon Carmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: Was Mayor Brown correct when he told the Minister, \u201Chis boss doesn\u2019t know what a deal is\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220a195053674222c9d3d4d4e431c36e3a\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS\u003C/span\u003E: No. What I would say to the mayor also is that when you think about a deal in the context of long-term relationship, the city regional deal is a 10-year relationship and there\u2019s a lot of water to go under the bridge over the next 10 years. What I can commit to is that as a Government, we are backing Aucklanders. We are backing Aucklanders in the economy. It is the backbone of our economic engine and we will continue to support that city.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003916\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022083a816abbb847f0a99aff178b1bbba2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022371e3fdc271f7415aa55dafb68069e00\u0022\u003EHon Carmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: If he intended to breach his deal with Auckland City Council only months after it was signed, why should any other council trust a deal with this Government?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003917\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022149271f45d007ae854b62776dbe4451e\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS\u003C/span\u003E: I don\u2019t agree with the premise of that question because no one\u2019s breached\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003918\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002260059c7fa95d74a6930ed4f3d78546aa\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The constant barrage has to stop. Interjections should be rare, reasonable, and apparently, if possible, humorous.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003919\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224fd5d33874a1800d07ef339b9d129706\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS\u003C/span\u003E: Firstly, I don\u2019t agree with the premise of that question. No one\u2019s breaching any deal. The outcome of the deal structure is in place. It is a strategic and legacy agreement between central government and local government that will deliver for Auckland. For the first time in a very long time, we have alignment between central government and local government in terms of the key projects that will make a difference in our country\u2019s biggest city. We should be supportive, optimistic, ambitious about Auckland, because if Auckland does well, New Zealand does well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003920\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022083a816abbb847f0a99aff178b1bbba2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f31f1aea540e68afb395b591e332dd4\u0022\u003EHon Carmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by his statement that the intention of the Auckland deal was to create intergenerational partnerships that survive decades; if so, why did his deal only last four months?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003921\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224c52cfbb4b5bb9e8f00bc9c846049cd7\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS\u003C/span\u003E: One thing is that speaker\u2019s not too funny, but the second part of the reality is that this Government is delivering for Auckland: $900 million in savings around Local Water Done Well; $4.5 billion around earthquake-prone building rules; fast tracking of the port\u2014$6.6 billion of extra national value as a result of that project alone\u2014fast tracking the north-western busway, unlocking about $10 billion of infrastructure benefits. I could go on, but on this side of the House, we are delivering for Auckland and we are proud of that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003922\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225342a0f2d59c80d017480deb805d886e\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by his statement to Newstalk ZB on Wednesday that he will be making an announcement on iwi representation at Auckland Council very soon; if so, why?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003923\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228fea74e779e9f89ae956ba93538c7c00\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve got a lot of announcements in the pipeline because I\u2019m a very busy Minister, as we are on this side of the House. We are a very busy Government and I make no apologies for that, so let\u2019s wait and see.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003924\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00222fc1242456b3bc305d388e0817cb1b2f\u0022\u003EFinance\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f705dc79f6ec03db65295d0e09e1d583\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 3\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b27d8609c612411686d517d0f9b09b28\u0022 data-id=\u0022b57ef2c4f1b4396edcd223de2d45a27a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003926\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d8609c612411686d517d0f9b09b28\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b57ef2c4f1b4396edcd223de2d45a27a\u0022\u003EDAVID MacLEOD (National\u2014New Plymouth) (14:09)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Finance\u003C/span\u003E: Does she stand by her answers to oral question No. 1 yesterday?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022 data-id=\u0022d5d394caa0af691994896f899c4f145f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003927\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d5d394caa0af691994896f899c4f145f\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:09)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes\u2014in particular, when I said that to raise core Crown revenue to 33 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in four years\u2019 time, a future Government would have to increase the tax taken that year by at least $10.4 billion. That is a big increase. It equates to over $100 more tax per household, every week.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003928\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d8609c612411686d517d0f9b09b28\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e994a1c168ca6d3b4859d3573d5b5643\u0022\u003EDavid MacLeod\u003C/span\u003E: What would it take to raise that amount of additional tax?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003929\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226cea30f53080ac31973e809a59f46a9b\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: To get core Crown revenue to 33 percent of GDP, a future Government would probably have to go to the biggest tax bases. One option, for example, would be to increase GST from 15 percent to 18 percent. Doing that and bringing in a capital gains tax, raising tax on businesses by scrapping Investment Boost, and denying interest deductibility on rental properties would altogether raise an additional $10.4\u00A0billion, and so the future Government would have achieved its goal of getting core Crown revenue up to 33 percent of GDP. Sadly, with that increase in GST, households would be paying more for almost everything they buy. Taxes would be up by more than $100 a household.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003930\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d8609c612411686d517d0f9b09b28\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226e0d0f7335eb6007406f0d2f0b914676\u0022\u003EDavid MacLeod\u003C/span\u003E: What is another alternative?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003931\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a83a662b9a5cbc64b7873cb971fde14b\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Yesterday, I mentioned another way of getting revenue to 33 percent of GDP in four years\u2019 time. That would be to raise the current income tax rates\u2014raise the current 17.5 percent rate to 20 percent, raise the current 30 percent income tax rate to 33 percent, and raise the current 33 percent income tax rate to 35\u00A0percent\u2014bring in a capital gains tax, scrap Investment Boost, and deny interest deductibility on rental properties. That combination of tax increases would raise the additional $10.4 billion required by the future Government\u2019s revenue policy. So there are certainly options to raise large amounts of revenue, but the problem is they are all bad.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003932\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d8609c612411686d517d0f9b09b28\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224efb0dcd2643bad617709d743ff8e73c\u0022\u003EDavid MacLeod\u003C/span\u003E: What would be the impact of raising income tax rates by so much?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003933\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f58e132495b20c856229107d0f71fb16\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: The immediate impact, obviously, would of course be on people\u2019s after-tax pay. The median full-time wage and salary earner brings home just over $82,000 a year. The income tax increases I\u2019ve just mentioned would increase their tax by almost $1,800 every year. Higher marginal income tax rates also reduce the return from working more hours, taking a promotion, or acquiring new skills, and so people would stop doing those things. Higher income tax rates could also make New Zealand less attractive to skilled migrants and would encourage more Kiwis to leave. In short, raising income tax rates to meet a target of revenue being 33 percent of the economy would be terrible for the economy and terrible for everyday Kiwis.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003934\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d86b9be7044508a1aa6e65e094052a5c\u0022\u003ETangi Utikere\u003C/span\u003E: Will the Government be proceeding with its planned increases in fuel excise?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226e7250dd1ebe9981df12336ada3183fb\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m glad to hear that the Labour Party have come around to our longstanding position, which has been made clear: we will not be lifting fuel taxes on 1 January next year. I also note that one of the first actions this Government took was to reverse the planned fuel tax increases that the last Government had planned and to put a moratorium on those tax increases. Not only did we do that but we also removed the Auckland regional fuel tax. I\u2019ll stand on our record.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003936\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002205517fe60a17aac84820be09eff0442e\u0022\u003ERMA Reform\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003937\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022919287d3d71a5064fc077132062684d0\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 4\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u0022f28445724ace811fad3b19b7afc05de3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003938\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f28445724ace811fad3b19b7afc05de3\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (14:13)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister responsible for RMA Reform\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by his statement, \u201COf course, our standards of living, and the living standards of our children and their children, depend on a healthy environment\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022f3fa67c6670f9b36f3269ddd5737a64e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003939\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f3fa67c6670f9b36f3269ddd5737a64e\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (14:14)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. I stand by my full statement that \u201Cour standards of living, and the living standards of our children and their children, depend on a healthy environment. But their futures also depend on whether they can afford a home, and on food and energy security, access to transport and public services, and the ability to make a living\u201D. Our country\u2019s future depends on a healthy environment, on housing, infrastructure, energy, and economic growth. The Government\u2019s Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms are the biggest tax cut any Government will deliver in a generation. Every superfluous consent is a tax. Every unnecessary notification is a tax. Every year of delay is a tax. New Zealanders have been paying it for 35 years and this Government is saying \u201Cno more\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003940\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cd4483ed8eb46cd0cdf350ec937ec504\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: Does he consider the millions if not billions of dollars that councils are facing to pick up new drinking-water sources to be a tax on the public from a failure of environmental protections?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003941\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002274bdda67a31bd840e5f2c8a89fc3c8ee\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: No, I think the member is confusing different concepts there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003942\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002252a483f6e0f9978687efc2ae0a63b8ec\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: How does he reconcile his comment just then with his Amendment Paper that will authorise breaches of environmental protections and remove the ability to cap pollution within environmental limits?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003943\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222014b7ea3c8fb9965bf7971e1915ac32\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, very easily, because the member needs to read the actual guard rails for national standards breaching limits, which says they must only be for activities that have a net public benefit, they must consider the wider implications for natural resource use, they must consider the likely opportunity costs, and they must clearly identify the limits that the standards enable a breach of.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003944\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226982b019e6c420b4d094c4ac9f91edd1\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: Does he accept that enabling breaches of an environmental limit for any reason defeats the purpose of having limits and puts at risk human and ecosystem health?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003945\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e13e5059308af9b1f9e17f381fac85b\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: A couple of points: one, the member is factually inaccurate. It\u2019s not just for any reason; they have to be for activities that have a net public benefit. The second point I would make is that the Natural Environment Bill requires the setting of environmental limits. One of the great failures of the RMA is that there are no limits, and the Natural Environment Bill says there have to be environmental limits across air, fresh water, coastal water, biodiversity, and land. Now, there\u2019s going to be a debate about what those limits are\u2014I fully accept that, and the Greens will adopt a particular position in relation to that\u2014but can we just agree with the basic concept that the setting of limits is important, the bill enables it, and that is a massive step forward on the RMA.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003946\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228f08d0362c0782a6e3cc782757b24d65\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: What has changed since his own expert advisory group recommended that there should be \u201CA requirement to cap resource use to ensure a limit is not breached.\u201D and today, with the Government now introducing their last-minute amendments to scrap those requirements?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003947\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b39087778d78349fa652642ac1a8bb63\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: The Government took further advice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003948\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d82ca413cae7429c781dd528dbff2cf8\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: Given environmental NGOs, iwi, hap\u016B, and planning experts have strongly opposed his changes that further destroy environmental protections, does he think he knows better than these experts and his own advisory group?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003949\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c7bbabe1dbf4bd11537b00cae52e3e2b\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: No, it\u2019s not a question of knowing more or thinking I\u2019m superior to them. I respect the views of the Environmental Defence Society and others, in the same way that I respect the views of those on other sides of the aisle: infrastructure providers, energy generators, farmers and growers up and down the country. Part of the challenge with planning reform and the planning system, and the environmental management system more generally, is that it involves trade-offs. As we have discovered through the RMA over 35 years, those trade-offs are difficult; they are complicated for the country to grapple with. There are trade-offs that are made between different values and different goals. Part of what we\u2019re trying to do in this planning reform effort is to surface those trade-offs more visibly, make sure the planning system confronts them at the top\u2014at the spatial planning and regional planning level\u2014rather than fight them out at an individual resource consent level. Is it perfect? No. Is it a better system than what we have now? Absolutely.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003950\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022af256a349f6148bc0c2d06f3c7005da4\u0022\u003EHousing\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003951\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022fd7e697162cd27418fc559de75e3d0ed\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 5\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cf22a832d14a4c99ab5dfd16e24446e5\u0022 data-id=\u0022ed990c7b9eb3a69b83751e42b3d13850\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003952\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf22a832d14a4c99ab5dfd16e24446e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ed990c7b9eb3a69b83751e42b3d13850\u0022\u003ERIMA NAKHLE (National\u2014Takanini) (14:18)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Housing\u003C/span\u003E: Will the Government introduce a stamp duty?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00228105f461320421800b4a0d576a003d8e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003953\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228105f461320421800b4a0d576a003d8e\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) (14:18)\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003954\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf22a832d14a4c99ab5dfd16e24446e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d887c5cae85a2c90b626e3516ff956fa\u0022\u003ERima Nakhle\u003C/span\u003E: Why doesn\u2019t the Government support a stamp duty?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003955\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229d91c8a8421ef3ce709447e2831f82c8\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Ah, well, a stamp duty is a tax on home buyers. It\u2019s the old rule: tax things you don\u2019t want. A stamp duty makes it harder for Kiwis to buy a home. Just take a random example. For a family buying an average-priced home in Auckland, just pick a random number\u2014say 5 percent. That would cost the home buyer about $59,000. Now, banks, at least in Australia, lend on the house, not on the stamp duty, so that $59,000 comes straight out of the home buyer\u2019s savings and is, of course, additional to the deposit. For most families, that is years and years of additional savings. A stamp duty makes it harder for people to buy houses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003956\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf22a832d14a4c99ab5dfd16e24446e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228e802cb49d4ef54c1968fe663c32b1bb\u0022\u003ERima Nakhle\u003C/span\u003E: Supplementary. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003957\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c489625c8042752ce517221771d8d40f\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019ve got a question being asked, Mr Jones; please just constrain it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003958\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf22a832d14a4c99ab5dfd16e24446e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b5bcb7acd568c227418b5cfbc0336b00\u0022\u003ERima Nakhle\u003C/span\u003E: What do tax experts say about stamp duties?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ed40faee0c424761cd1773225d437aad\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: This issue has been extensively studied. Australia\u2019s Treasury, for example, and economists more generally have described the stamp duty tax as inefficient. It\u2019s one that distorts economic activity and changes people\u2019s behaviour for the worse. They can discourage work, stop people from taking a better job, stop people from moving house, stop people from investing, and hinder workforce mobility. Inefficient taxes shrink the economy and create a cost to society. Treasury has modelled Australia\u2019s major taxes, and I can tell the House that stamp duty on conveyances\u2014in other words, the transfer or sale of property\u2014is the worst tax. It creates 70c of economic damage for every dollar raised. Chuck that through David Seymour\u2019s cost-benefit analysis. It doesn\u2019t come out well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003960\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf22a832d14a4c99ab5dfd16e24446e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222fce2f5ae12a83bfb019188ba5deb5c3\u0022\u003ERima Nakhle\u003C/span\u003E: What experiences overseas has he seen about stamp duties?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003961\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022757dada6511b00ab950add8b780298c9\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, too much noise. Just ask the question again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003962\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf22a832d14a4c99ab5dfd16e24446e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f178d26084fdbe887f6bbdb995bd72ae\u0022\u003ERima Nakhle\u003C/span\u003E: Ask the question again? Of course. What experiences overseas has he seen about stamp duties?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003963\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002287d9f0ac53c9c8484f28f0c7378bcfd3\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: When Toronto added a second stamp duty on property purchases, purchases by owner-occupiers fell and purchases by investors rose. I refer members to a study published in the Review of Economic Studies. In Britain, researchers found stamp duties cut the rate at which people move house, thus affecting mobility. It means growing families are stuck in a two-bedroom house when they need more, or an older couple in a home they can\u2019t afford to leave. Stamp duties are bad policy, and we won\u2019t be introducing one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003964\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002234d78c6042497a7d42fca04f2362243f\u0022\u003EHealth\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003965\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b866b09d6edbf6e1223872f29dea0446\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 6\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022 data-id=\u0022f7bda9d8a57f1a7a05f3e58db6fddc35\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003966\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f7bda9d8a57f1a7a05f3e58db6fddc35\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (14:21)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Health\u003C/span\u003E: Is it correct that Health New Zealand\u2019s projected deficit for the 2026-27 financial year has deteriorated to $475 million, and what proportion, if any, of that deficit will be closed with cuts to front-line services?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022 data-id=\u0022ddc7a0517abe0b5a8517fafe4afb39cd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003967\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ddc7a0517abe0b5a8517fafe4afb39cd\u0022\u003EHon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health) (14:22)\u003C/span\u003E on behalf of the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Health\u003C/span\u003E: The Government has agreed to increase Health New Zealand\u2019s projected deficit for 2026-27 to $475 million, as set out in media reports and Health New Zealand\u2019s publicly available statement of performance expectations. That is a deliberate decision to deliver more healthcare for New Zealanders, so I reject the premise of the second part of the question. This decision is to protect services.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003968\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ce91c022431b39f0a90a7f08d28d2e05\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: If his Government has added only 54 fulltime-equivalents (FTEs) of nurses in two years while the deficit was $350 million, what happens to nursing numbers when the deficit has grown to $475 million?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003969\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226e3090db865d9d6753d07450cd4c1f60\u0022\u003EHon CASEY COSTELLO\u003C/span\u003E: I will address the nurse number question that the member has put. This matter has been traversed in the House a number of times now, and the member\u2019s assertions don\u2019t become more true the more times she says them. There are 2,162\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003970\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225abc5bf56228b966243abae92a4de884\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003971\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cf0f94aa588f86f0b41d0eb3624771fe\u0022\u003EHon CASEY COSTELLO\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014additional nurses on a net basis.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003972\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220f8e00b8e9a0a4eb1cec7c9da8eb1ad9\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I was just about to suggest that the Minister answer her question again, without reference to anything that might have been said by the Opposition on this matter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003973\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227a7df6dc5c3159b2ce947f93b85b8b35\u0022\u003EHon CASEY COSTELLO\u003C/span\u003E: This matter has been traversed in the House a number of times. There are 2,162 additional nurses on a net basis employed by Health New Zealand since 2023, which equates to a net increase of 1,640 fulltime-equivalents. We have grown the number of nurses at Health New Zealand by more than 1,600 FTE, and as at 14\u00A0August, there were 2,378 FTE nursing roles actively being recruited across Health New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003974\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223c77258448a6f89ef99b5d4b9d204670\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: After cutting hospital maintenance from $120 million in 2023 to $97 million in 2025, how many further cuts is he planning to turn around a deficit of $475 million?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228eeab646159b07ab3c6d8793bbee3861\u0022\u003EHon CASEY COSTELLO\u003C/span\u003E: Again, the point around the deficit is to ensure that services are not being cut. This means we are operating on the delivery of services so that we do not reduce. This is not being funded by loss. This is not being funded by Apple Pay or credit card. This is on the reserves that exist within the health system, so that no front-line services will be cut.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003976\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aa8783b15ee1226ecedc24138e787c2c\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: If 1,000 data and digital staff lost their jobs when the deficit was $350 million, how much further will support for these critical systems be cut when the deficit is $475 million?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003977\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f9bf04d1cdaf4870bdf704a05bb540a1\u0022\u003EHon CASEY COSTELLO\u003C/span\u003E: As we have stated, this decision was a deliberate decision. Health New Zealand could balance its books tomorrow, but it would only get there by treating fewer patients than it has proven it can treat, and that was not an option considered by the Minister. The investment driving this year\u2019s position is in additional elective treatments, winter preparedness, and primary care. This is care being delivered to New Zealanders right now, and the Government has not been prepared to trade off to a faster route to a number on a page. Therefore, we will not allow services to be cut, and that is why the deficit is being used in this way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003978\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002231fe2107312e6334ec9656f01af7e9c1\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Exactly what sort of mentality would describe $475 million more in health as a deterioration in investment in health?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003979\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223ce32b37308ec1436d00dba90c18a61c\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, without being personal, the Minister can address the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003980\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225b73b72852087317b8a852f23a67d76e\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Well, what sort of mentality, without being personal, would describe it that way?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003981\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022755e51026ec7c9f753b512be79967234\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, that\u2019s exactly the problem.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003982\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225073bd0b75ae835766c496bbdf100f8f\u0022\u003EHon CASEY COSTELLO\u003C/span\u003E: This Government has agreed to increase Health New Zealand\u2019s deficit position from break even to $475 million in 2026-27. This is entirely funded by cash reserves and, therefore, does not involve debt.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003983\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002286d2e91e741f28b81d633727622916eb\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: If care and support worker numbers in Health New Zealand fell by 213 fulltime-equivalents while Health New Zealand was running a $350 million deficit, will there be greater cuts when the health system is running a $475 million deficit?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227fcdeaeded0b6ef948eed66e802dc958\u0022\u003EHon CASEY COSTELLO\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll reiterate the position again. The decision that has been made is deliberate. Health New Zealand could balance its books tomorrow, but it is choosing to ensure that quality of service is maintained, that we do not cut services. The member is implying that the better option would be to return to balanced books and cut services.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003985\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227f49f9d7365e700d000ca1836b708d95\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Very slowly and with crayons: is $475 million more a cut or an investment?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003986\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f3e4072e72a96d81eaede4c821820001\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Why should we follow the rules when that\u2019s allowed?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003987\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b79583a9de086b3504b1e6335b585d09\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Excuse me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003988\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e68bd62a8559d0c3d4b8e1007d2f7fa6\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: You wouldn\u2019t be able to work it out, four-flusher.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003989\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227bb77a6c1da4acd225c45d1c9dde1d56\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry. If you\u2019ve got a point of order, stand up and take it. Don\u2019t snipe from the side.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003990\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002256a99f8ac6a520e1600437d63936c1fc\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, sir.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003991\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229b62bf92781f15aed1627e25eb6615f2\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s your point of order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003992\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a460162b89218c9453c737001f625069\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: The point of order is quite clear, that you have said to this House on a number of occasions that there is to be no lead-in before a question is asked; it certainly isn\u2019t supposed to be using questions to clearly attack other members of the House. Both of those things were in breach in that and you said nothing. Now, this is another example of that member being allowed to do things that you expect from others. It is not acceptable, sir.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003993\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e53ae457c7996d2b205473ded3845047\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: And that is completely unreasonable on your part, and if you want that applied to every question that gets asked from the Opposition, then that\u2019s where we\u2019ll go. In the meantime, the Minister should answer that question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003994\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ec49137312af2385def2454a07c2dcde\u0022\u003EHon CASEY COSTELLO\u003C/span\u003E: As I\u2019ve stated, the $475 million was a Government decision to ensure that services do not get cut and that the funding is completely delivered by cash reserves, and, therefore, no debt is involved.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003995\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228bbe423f79594273ac2975c5fa9b2909\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. You\u2019ve just indicated that if that is what the Opposition would like, then that is what we\u2019ll do. That is what the Opposition would like, sir. We draft our questions according to the requirements of Speakers\u2019 rulings, and all we ask is that the requirements be applied consistently across all parties and, specifically in this instance, across all members.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003996\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002272bc04db8a13e593fc5d521d0a4f4447\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Good.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003997\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002266a406ec8d3aa42fade43482674374bf\u0022\u003ERevenue\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003998\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002265cb205ff1667b5d9d33f71f331b3300\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 7\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022200839810eb94155be7306bf21d350dd\u0022 data-id=\u00220c81682a0be5190a778269b25ebf9657\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520003999\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022200839810eb94155be7306bf21d350dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220c81682a0be5190a778269b25ebf9657\u0022\u003ESAM UFFINDELL (National\u2014Tauranga) (14:29)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Revenue\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Government considering increasing the corporate tax rate?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022 data-id=\u00223b5f217bcf4fd76c793cd43fc45c21ce\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004000\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223b5f217bcf4fd76c793cd43fc45c21ce\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue) (14:29)\u003C/span\u003E: No, this Government is not considering increasing the corporate tax rate. New Zealand\u2019s company tax rate remains at 28 percent, where it has been since a previous National Government lowered it. IRD\u2019s own 2025 tax system review says that higher taxes on inbound capital raise the return investors require. We are focused on growing the economy, attracting investment, making it easier for businesses to invest and hire, fixing the basics, and not on raising taxes on businesses that employ hard-working Kiwis.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022200839810eb94155be7306bf21d350dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002253579f6f151bf2220d36f3b9c34d22c9\u0022\u003ESam Uffindell\u003C/span\u003E: What impact would raising the corporate tax rate have on the New Zealand economy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bf0dc09f97638409e25c7fdfa7fac32f\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS\u003C/span\u003E: Raising the corporate tax rate would be a handbrake on the economy when we can least afford it: less investment, lower labour productivity, and lower wages, with the tax liability ultimately being borne by hard-working Kiwi workers. New Zealand already has one of the higher company tax rates in the OECD. Increasing it up from 28 percent would make this country a worse place to invest. That means fewer jobs and less growth.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022200839810eb94155be7306bf21d350dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228d4749073cf57edffd9cadc38a941809\u0022\u003ESam Uffindell\u003C/span\u003E: What would raising the company tax rate mean for everyday Kiwi workers?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223b8d6239cb650441340c77bebfee6d57\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it\u2019s a mistake to think that only the big corporates and their owners would be harmed by an increase in the company tax rate. Any increase would also affect small businesses and make it harder to start a business in the first place. It would also impact every worker. When businesses hire fewer people and make fewer investments because they are instead paying that money in taxes, that means fewer opportunities for workers. This side of the House wants to see more people in work, not less. We want to make sure that more people are starting and growing businesses, not less.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022200839810eb94155be7306bf21d350dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002299b971ecb97c3516857dfee4cbdfc710\u0022\u003ESam Uffindell\u003C/span\u003E: What tax changes for businesses has the Government introduced instead?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f43024b6fa4488302b903cc80f33e1d4\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, good news: instead of a tax increase, this Government has delivered Investment Boost. This Government\u2019s Investment Boost has significantly lowered the tax burden on new investment. Investment Boost actually cuts the average effective marginal corporate tax rate by about five to six percentage points, and that takes it from about 28 percent to below 24 percent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022011ab8d8ed2ef8897869e145f3fa2cf2\u0022\u003EHon Dr Deborah Russell\u003C/span\u003E: Will he rule out increasing GST?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223e2376ae7d356e2fe6d4ba7602568b21\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m glad the member asked about future appetite around taxes, but on this side of the House, I can be very clear that we will not be increasing any new taxes\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002209246dad9595d1dfaabf76239b197460\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Just a moment\u2014just a moment. Just answer the question without any sort of flicks at the other side of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b5db72439e1e394918534bc74cc80da9\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah\u2014we will not be increasing any new taxes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b05e4b646e5299be924f4545f85afbb9\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Good, and that\u2019s the end of that question. Oriini Kaipara [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]\u2014Oriini Kaipara, and no one else.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002262984ad16b89075331e4ef372da15ead\u0022\u003ESocial Development and Employment\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f02c08dccdaae68dfedaf5237830069d\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 8\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f5def584ef46e4227635d45dea8e1d8\u0022\u003EORIINI KAIPARA\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003E[Authorised reo M\u0101ori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office]\u003C/span\u003E\u2014to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: what impact, if any, will the Government\u2019s use of automated decision-making to make benefit decisions have on wh\u0101nau access to income support, and unemployment?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b106bec69f987037fa22ac8343ad8d7\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, the member needs to present the question to the House as written.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022 data-id=\u00221328d981848cb2f6f0d7f11d3c3248ac\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221328d981848cb2f6f0d7f11d3c3248ac\u0022\u003EORIINI KAIPARA (Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori\u2014T\u0101maki Makaurau) (14:33)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister for Social Development and Employment\u003C/span\u003E: What impact, if any, will the Government\u2019s use of AI to make benefit decisions have on wh\u0101nau access to income support, and unemployment?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224680dcac294f4cd5bdd3a5a7ed5a3bb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022086ab41772b395d1b5c2daa968fe0fdc\u0022\u003EHon PENNY SIMMONDS\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That isn\u2019t the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b5c022ca6c243f94d56a63f2cec83423\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it\u2019s the question I\u2019ve got in front of me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224680dcac294f4cd5bdd3a5a7ed5a3bb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002237a956a1971ef82be469aef8e8bf3add\u0022\u003EHon PENNY SIMMONDS\u003C/span\u003E: The final sentence: \u201Cand the impact on employment\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002215a58f796e0a2e776e76033cb72cbc33\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, that\u2019s correct. Look, the other day I took a question off the National Party because they\u2019d got it wrong. In that case, they got it dreadfully wrong, because it was a supplementary that was asked instead of the primary. Read the primary as it\u2019s written on the paper.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022068c88db64ef765b1b3b2b546d631c14\u0022\u003EOriini Kaipara\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s exactly what I read.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b244ce9b916b1504af0871e9c65d8bf6\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The yellow sheet of paper?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220aa300fe3ee60b89a208d835831e2997\u0022\u003EOriini Kaipara\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, that\u2019s exactly what I read. I didn\u2019t add anything into it. However, I will start again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ee02986319b14a550bb5218e786b1b13\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: OK. There must be two bits of paper floating around. Answer the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224680dcac294f4cd5bdd3a5a7ed5a3bb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226cb3154b21e638cd47a19a5f55d4ef43\u0022\u003EHon PENNY SIMMONDS\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022162377224870d85bf1f4e22c2fcaccf7\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, before you do, I do apologise to the member for that second intervention. The first one was correct.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224680dcac294f4cd5bdd3a5a7ed5a3bb9\u0022 data-id=\u0022c36f44bcae5790aa70a779a003a8fac4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224680dcac294f4cd5bdd3a5a7ed5a3bb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c36f44bcae5790aa70a779a003a8fac4\u0022\u003EHon PENNY SIMMONDS (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) (14:34)\u003C/span\u003E on behalf of the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister for Social Development and Employment\u003C/span\u003E: The ministry does not use generative artificial intelligence (AI) to make decisions about people\u2019s benefits. It uses automated decision-making\u2014ADM\u2014for some straightforward, rules-based processes where no discretion is required, while decisions requiring judgment continue to involve staff. This means faster and more accurate access to support that beneficiaries need, while retaining human judgment and safeguards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c9ab77ac6e5b477367010b45704afb72\u0022\u003EOriini Kaipara\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Government sending a message to the private sector that it is OK to replace entry-level roles with automated decision-making, and, if so, what impact will this change have on M\u0101ori and rangatahi unemployment, which is sitting at 10.8\u00A0percent and 25\u00A0percent respectively\u2014both 11-year highs?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224680dcac294f4cd5bdd3a5a7ed5a3bb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022533bbe0721985800e8a76ae1532d9a47\u0022\u003EHon PENNY SIMMONDS\u003C/span\u003E: On behalf of the Minister, the use of automated decision-making enables Ministry of Social Development staff to process more quickly and more accurately the support that beneficiaries need while still retaining the safeguards and human judgment on decision making.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d887389b63c6f5d0eb3c25fefa66ac12\u0022\u003EOriini Kaipara\u003C/span\u003E: Have any mistakes been made?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224680dcac294f4cd5bdd3a5a7ed5a3bb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002207f971a779e4ec3b6a35dd79abfa67dd\u0022\u003EHon PENNY SIMMONDS\u003C/span\u003E: On behalf of the Minister, that\u2019s a fairly broad question, but if the member would like to put in writing what particular mistake she might be aware of\u2014let me know.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f8c4831ba4ea0d286d326e5d1b77af7f\u0022\u003EHousing\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d0e8d40a7e5bc784192c62fd3469756e\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 9\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022 data-id=\u00221d8ef8a2f61d76d1ca8105da36819bde\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221d8ef8a2f61d76d1ca8105da36819bde\u0022\u003EHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (14:36)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Housing\u003C/span\u003E: How many of the social houses funded in the 2024 and 2025 Budgets have been delivered?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00229a4b6e2342a649e483bef165ab8c58b0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229a4b6e2342a649e483bef165ab8c58b0\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) (14:36)\u003C/span\u003E: Since coming into office, the Government has delivered around 8,000 net new social homes; 5,000 net new social houses delivered by K\u0101inga Ora; 2,900 delivered by community housing providers. In relation to Budget 2024 and 2025, as of this week, 633 places have been delivered so far; by 30 November 2026, we expect this number to be at least 1,000, which is great progress.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022578cb6dd00e832f205b0fab83b147b76\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Does he accept, as outlined in a recent report by Community Housing Aotearoa, that homeless has reached its highest ever record level?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022467ad02e93ade1a23d1918d4116440f6\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: As the member knows, there are a variety of different measures in relation to homelessness\u2014for example, from Census 2018 to Census 2023, the number of people living in severe housing depravation, which is a statistically robust measure of homelessness, went up by around, from memory, 37 percent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229556bec02aeaa149fce6fe424b706e26\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. Sir, I asked him specifically around \u201CDoes he accept that homelessness has increased to the highest level?\u201D His response was to a datapoint from the previous Government\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222bf91035b4d7b053c4c326961a9e9e48\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I appreciate that point. I think the Minister could either not answer because it\u2019s not in the public interest or give some answer to that specific question, even though it is in the nature of a yes or no.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220d7e2f03a9eb5470442da2d5619a4109\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll just repeat what I said, which is that there are a variety of different measures around homelessness. I referred to the most statistically robust measure of homelessness, which is severe housing deprivation as measured by the census.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d013771b3e0dfe0ce02e48c136a084c5\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Why, when Community Housing Aotearoa have said that homelessness has now reached its highest ever level, will he not rescind his instruction to K\u0101inga Ora to not increase the number of houses it has?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220ffe26bb0dea6957bbbb91f629191ef3\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Because, in relation to the second limb of the question, the Government is interested in growing social housing more generally, not a narrow fixation on the number of State houses. We have funded significant investments across all three Budgets in growing the social housing pipeline, which is why there is now around 4,800 to 5,300 total homes funded across Budgets 2024, 2025, and 2026. We are delivering them in a cheaper way, thanks to the support provided with the Community Housing Funding Authority, which I note the member has decided to match recently, and I welcome. We\u2019re delivering them in a cheaper way, and a more value-for-money way, and delivering them to the areas which are needed most\u2014for example, last week, Tama Potaka and I announced well over 100 homes in Tair\u0101whiti alone because that is the area that is in severe need.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002292cac3f91fead31ab533bbe46f353738\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: How can he, on one hand, see homelessness increase to the highest ever record level, admit that there is no guarantee for shelter for those who need it. and claim to want to fix it, while only delivering, so far, 633 houses, and refuse to rescind his instruction to K\u0101inga Ora not to increase the number of homes?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002273fc8b6cd88a46b0bf4b902f505b0fec\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the member is conflating about three or four separate issues there. I just refer him to what I said in the last answer, which is that we funded over 4,800 social homes across Budgets 2024\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229ebb91796944cdb29bdb36027ec8f50c\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: You delivered 633.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022edbfaf0598cbdd8367bc5c6d425fd167\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, as the member may well discover at some point, it takes time to build houses. Funding a house does not immediately mean it turns up\u2014for example, I am advised that for social houses funded in Budget 2020, some were not delivered until 2025, five years later. So the funding provided in Budget 2024 started on 1 July 2025, which is just over a year or so ago, and 630 homes have been delivered. If the member wants to talk about delivery, I\u2019d just put up 100,000 homes and compare it to the record.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229d5b13d601794bb282d99453116ad395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228700f059754bdea93faa0f591cace95d\u0022\u003EHon Tama Potaka\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Minister please confirm that the recent Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport Homelessness Insights Report noted that the number of those rough sleeping in Auckland has decreased over the past 18 months, and this is influenced by the successful use of 300 Housing First places announced by said Minister in September 2025?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022596835985b816a83cc18471bcbeeaa16\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: How many of those have been filled?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225bbfec34bc6fb027b19db8e2ef6ab9b2\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: All of them, actually. In response to the question from Tama Potaka\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002201f4a3b346edfb2874e2c0765fb8f17a\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s enough. The Minister\u2019s quite capable of answering on his own without the barrage from the background.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e1a5dcd103fd29b8d83a2b7d0527ef10\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I can confirm that. Let\u2019s just be honest with the House: we have a homelessness issue in this country. I\u2019m not denying that we have one, I\u2019ve never denied that and I never would, because the facts are obvious. We\u2019ve had a homelessness issue in New Zealand for the better part of 20 to 30 years, and we need to be honest about the fact that the solution is not just writing a cheque. Between 2017 and 2023, the country spent\u2014wait for it\u2014$30 billion on housing support, and the number of people living in severe deprivation increased. So if it was just a money issue, we would have solved it a long time ago. The honest answer is it is land supply, it is infrastructure, it is better social support, it is social investment, it is backing our community housing providers, it is doing a range of things\u2014all of which, by the way, the Government is doing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022cf9dc6a3799ea8d80cbea2525529ba46\u0022\u003EHousing\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002253237f7c1a1d30deff137061348094c9\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022 data-id=\u00220628cc8652cb89e039010a4f041a75e4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220628cc8652cb89e039010a4f041a75e4\u0022\u003ETAMATHA PAUL (Green\u2014Wellington Central) (14:42)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Housing\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by his reported statement that it doesn\u2019t sit comfortably with him that there is no guarantee of shelter for people on any given night; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u002203c469f067932969aedc7aa500bd7f8e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002203c469f067932969aedc7aa500bd7f8e\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) (14:42)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, in context. What I said was\u2014and, actually, what I\u2019ve just repeated in response to the last supplementary\u2014we have an enormous challenge around housing in this country. I\u2019ve spent much of the last three years doing my best to try and fix it, including things like fast track and building more social homes. Last week, we announced 820 new social houses around the country, including in the areas that are in severe housing need. We\u2019ve expanded homelessness outreach services, including in Auckland\u2014the Auckland City Mission and K\u0101hui T\u016B Kaha. I\u2019m not going to pretend for a moment that there is not a challenge here; there is. It\u2019s a long-running social challenge for New Zealand, we\u2019re making progress, but there\u2019s a lot to do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002265d45468bd7b609f11b09b82cb858c02\u0022\u003ETamatha Paul\u003C/span\u003E: Was he trying his best when the Government decided to restrict access to emergency accommodation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e954eb0555ff83c2a5e3fee7c6487846\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Emergency accommodation is there. There are around 400 people living in emergency motel accommodation right now. It is there for those who are in genuine need. We did make a change, because the Government\u2019s view was that spending $1 million a day, which is what we were doing, and trapping people, over 4,000 at its peak, in grotty, dank motel rooms, often filled with crime and squalor, was terrible for the families, disastrous for children, and recklessly irresponsible for the communities which those motels were in. The only people who benefited from that disaster were motel owners, who enriched themselves on the backs of human misery. So I\u2019m proud that we put an end to it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fb9079af1b9230852f2375fd58d391fe\u0022\u003ETamatha Paul\u003C/span\u003E: Was he trying his best when his Government decided to empower the police to move on rough sleepers when they have no guarantee of shelter?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002241067b3880612388410884bbce2e05df\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: In relation to the second part of that question, we\u2019re working hard with a range of community providers in Auckland, including some of the groups I just mentioned, like the City Mission and K\u0101hui T\u016B Kaha. We\u2019ve funded immediate transition housing support in Auckland, for example, and I\u2019m aware of a letter from her colleague the Hon Julie Anne Genter in relation to a similar service that could be funded in Wellington, for example, as well. Those services do work, and we\u2019ll continue to support them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002292d54eccae453fac8117c99bca365472\u0022\u003ETamatha Paul\u003C/span\u003E: Does he expect someone who is rough sleeping out in the cold and wet weather, when they are moved on, if there is no guarantee of shelter available to them, to be able to move on?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de3408ae1895c2afe5deff05851f873b\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll just refer the member to the answer I previously gave, which is that we fund an extensive range of supports in our major centres, and now\u2014thanks to the work of Mr Potaka\u2014increasingly in our regional centres, as well, to help those who are doing it tough, who are in need of support, and who don\u2019t have a bed for the night.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002238d4b0219056ae7f6a3467a6e4543d59\u0022\u003ETamatha Paul\u003C/span\u003E: Are the immediate access transitional housing beds available in the whole country enough to meet the persistently high number of people rough sleeping when all of those beds are in Auckland and there are only 65 beds?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002298407930c4dc0629d6a30a47c7911227\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: No, they\u2019re not available in the whole country. Not everywhere in the country has the providers or the services that could sustain those, but if there are providers out there who are prepared to offer what is quite a difficult service to provide\u2014I want to say that in the best spirit\u2014then we\u2019re prepared to look at that, obviously.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d78dca351ba140c2ceba52a58e40213d\u0022\u003ETamatha Paul\u003C/span\u003E: What will he do, if anything, to address his discomfort that there is no guarantee of shelter for homeless people?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d41880e3685dab9717902f0fd5ca129a\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: What I will do is do what we are doing\u2014fast track, going for housing growth, sorting out our infrastructure system, changing our social housing system\u2014so that rather than having a potpourri approach to social housing provision, we take a place-based approach, look at the data, and say, \u201CThe East Coast has housing need; we\u2019re going to spend some money there and build some houses. The Far North has severe housing deprivation; we\u2019re going to invest some money there.\u201D We\u2019re going to look at the cohorts who need social housing the most: the victims of family violence, the former prisoners, and the people in acute mental health beds who can\u2019t leave the mental health facilities they\u2019re in, because they\u2019ve got nowhere to go. We\u2019re going to direct the system to make sure people like that have social houses that they can go to. Our social housing system is not working effectively enough for the very people it is designed to help. The good news is that we are fixing it. I invite you to come on the journey with me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229d5b13d601794bb282d99453116ad395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fe37e86b3f15fa9453409ff5b6c45912\u0022\u003EHon Tama Potaka\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Minister please confirm that this Government has committed, again, to funding more than $14 million of additional transitional housing services in locations such as Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, Hamilton, Whakat\u0101ne, Tauranga, Waimakariri, Napier, New Plymouth, and now Masterton?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002284aef10bb5225cba1ba22f86c789fd29\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I can confirm that, and I\u2019m very proud of those investments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ecee88e43cce7f41747b86c5ef8ed465\u0022\u003ESocial Development and Employment\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00225a726da207f5cf6b0a9cb54301be3cdb\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022 data-id=\u0022014a52d2ff29089f74ce09b9bab5c158\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022014a52d2ff29089f74ce09b9bab5c158\u0022\u003ECUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour\u2014Ikaroa-R\u0101whiti) (14:47)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister for Social Development and Employment\u003C/span\u003E: Does she stand by her statement that \u201Cin terms of unemployment, M\u0101ori are disproportionately affected\u201D; if so, why?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224680dcac294f4cd5bdd3a5a7ed5a3bb9\u0022 data-id=\u0022def110dca21b8f48fab4471bee73eacc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224680dcac294f4cd5bdd3a5a7ed5a3bb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022def110dca21b8f48fab4471bee73eacc\u0022\u003EHon PENNY SIMMONDS (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) (14:47)\u003C/span\u003E on behalf of the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister for Social Development and Employment\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, we acknowledge that many Kiwis are finding it tough at the moment. That\u2019s why our Government is so focused on fixing the basics and building the future. We are seeing positive signs. Our economy is growing. The Ministry of Social Development\u2019s community coaching programme and expanded case management services have helped improve employment opportunities for young people, including M\u0101ori. I\u2019m confident our approach is working, because despite challenging times, we have seen an increase in the number of M\u0101ori exiting the jobseeker benefit on to work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b9c6c58ad6ef329859b2da8f9634ad81\u0022\u003ECushla Tangaere-Manuel\u003C/span\u003E: Can she confirm that under her watch, M\u0101ori unemployment in Tair\u0101whiti has reached nearly 10 percent?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224680dcac294f4cd5bdd3a5a7ed5a3bb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022661764d09ce43b7475e881a60fd09ca3\u0022\u003EHon PENNY SIMMONDS\u003C/span\u003E: As we acknowledge, there is a disproportionate number of M\u0101ori that are implicated by unemployment. Things like being predominantly in sectors such as manufacturing, construction, infrastructure, which are more susceptible to changes in employment cycles, means that unemployment has been higher\u2014much higher\u2014than we would like it, but that\u2019s why we are putting in place a number of things to assist. Things like Mana in Mahi, things like He Poutama Rangatahi, things like Flexi-wage, and things like driver\u2019s licence support, Community Job Coaching, 1,000 additional Youth Guarantee places, saving Apprenticeship Boost, and doubling trades academies are all focused on ensuring that there are pathways to employment for M\u0101ori.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022974f04234ff24451e21067375d398fcf\u0022\u003ECushla Tangaere-Manuel\u003C/span\u003E: Can she confirm that under her watch, young M\u0101ori not in education, employment, or training has reached 23.1\u00A0percent?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224680dcac294f4cd5bdd3a5a7ed5a3bb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224cc83a403388c7a97f3df0ba64fbab00\u0022\u003EHon PENNY SIMMONDS\u003C/span\u003E: Again, young people are disproportionately impacted by high unemployment, and, again, that is why we have that full range of programmes there to support a pathway for young M\u0101ori into employment. But the biggest thing that will ensure that more young people, more M\u0101ori, go into employment is growth in our economy. That is why we are so focused on ensuring that the economy can grow\u2014so that employers have confidence to take on more staff. But something that we will not be doing is putting in place stamp duty, an international company tax\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220690c4090937d626b6cd6386539522ec\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s enough\u2014that\u2019s enough.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022819edbf5ccfd6f7b0a1eec82c9b186bb\u0022\u003ECushla Tangaere-Manuel\u003C/span\u003E: Can she confirm that there are nearly 10,000 more M\u0101ori on jobseeker support compared to when she took office?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224680dcac294f4cd5bdd3a5a7ed5a3bb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221a06e50bce624994883b51fd384b2ead\u0022\u003EHon PENNY SIMMONDS\u003C/span\u003E: On behalf of the Minister, we have been very clear that M\u0101ori and young M\u0101ori are disproportionately impacted by unemployment. That is why we have to be so focused on ensuring that our economy grows, on ensuring that we take away red tape\u2014so that businesses have the confidence to grow and hire more people. It is absolutely critical that our economy continues to grow to enable lower unemployment and to ensure that more M\u0101ori are employed. We are seeing signs of it in regions like Canterbury and Otago and Southland, where the economy has come back stronger and, therefore, the unemployment rate is dropping.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002297c0440cf6c6f264e6bcaad3a39bd223\u0022\u003ECushla Tangaere-Manuel\u003C/span\u003E: Why, when the number of M\u0101ori unemployed and on jobseeker keeps rising under her watch, did she cut M\u0101ori trades training, an initiative that addresses the very concerns she claims to have?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224680dcac294f4cd5bdd3a5a7ed5a3bb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022af8693f2f5790f558652cbb39dd54e01\u0022\u003EHon PENNY SIMMONDS\u003C/span\u003E: I will read that full range of supports, if the member would like, again: Mana in Mahi, He Poutama Rangatahi, Flexi-wage\u2014a whole range of programmes, training initiatives, employment support that is designed to help prepare people for work when it is available so that they can take up those opportunities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d9071d940be8f8027068c81b3ec91dfb\u0022\u003ECommerce and Consumer Affairs\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00225f85a518675ce8794a2eae312752a954\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 12\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u002229e112859612078904235a4a2cdd5ab7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002229e112859612078904235a4a2cdd5ab7\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (14:52)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022587d574de1174371be09e431d9060e87\u0022 data-id=\u002276ad6f346e6d2d8f42e000433627afda\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022587d574de1174371be09e431d9060e87\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002276ad6f346e6d2d8f42e000433627afda\u0022\u003EHon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (14:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, in the context they were given.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d5d2ad8b5e06014f418dab62f795ef93\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Will he continue to defend high food price increases, and what other price increases on essentials is he asking Kiwis to wear?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022587d574de1174371be09e431d9060e87\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002269c63063d50e3337e311a006ff179123\u0022\u003EHon CAMERON BREWER\u003C/span\u003E: I have never defended high food prices. We are very encouraged\u2014and I\u2019m grateful to have the opportunity, again\u2014by the latest Statistics New Zealand food price index, which showed grocery prices increased just 1.9 percent in the year to July 2026. It\u2019s a big improvement from 12.3 percent in the year to June 2023.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223d075eb67e71d7b719c5c5cfe8f05032\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: So does he share the goal of the finance Minister, as stated on 27 May 2025, to \u201Creduce food prices for Kiwis\u201D, or his comment this week that he will defend sustainable food price increases?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022587d574de1174371be09e431d9060e87\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220adee3a2b8bc4b96709be0d6a465317d\u0022\u003EHon CAMERON BREWER\u003C/span\u003E: I have never gone out there defending food price increases. What I promoted was sustainable grocery prices, and that is what we are getting to a point of\u20141.9 percent in the year to July 2026 is a big improvement from 12.3 percent under the previous Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e80df83fbab914c8465dd275fac143d\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Can seniors, who are increasingly visiting the doctor malnourished and in need of vitamin injections, afford these sustainable food price increases he commented on this week, as he defends those price rises while the supermarkets profit?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022587d574de1174371be09e431d9060e87\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db860a5ac99ef2909028f6aa756bb932\u0022\u003EHon CAMERON BREWER\u003C/span\u003E: Again, we are seeing some progress as far as grocery prices go, and I take you back to 2023, when overall annual food prices went up by 12.5 percent, when grocery food prices went up 12.8 percent, when fruit and vegetables\u2014in 2023\u2014went up by 22 percent in one year, when restaurant meals and ready-to-eat food went up 9.2 percent, and when meat, poultry, and fish went up 11 percent. That was her record.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002242e2d3e0d4c5783864487db3bef03bca\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Who is correct: the Minister, who said just then that we are seeing some progress on grocery prices, or the carer who said, \u201CWhen we talk about proteins, we talk about eggs, fish, meat\u2014they\u2019re almost out of reach now to a generation of pensioners.\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022587d574de1174371be09e431d9060e87\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ca9e5ec85df4c206b151727bacdcc798\u0022\u003EHon CAMERON BREWER\u003C/span\u003E: This Government will continue the good work it\u2019s doing to put downward pressure on grocery prices. The latest stat we have is 1.9 percent\u2014just 1.9 percent\u2014as an annual increase in food. Yes, we\u2019ve got some work to do, but it\u2019s a big improvement from where we were at under the last administration.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f91fcf54ab13916d000fd4a25d0c9c96\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That concludes oral questions. We\u2019ll take a moment for those who need to go to other business to do so quietly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI declare the House in committee for the consideration of the Natural Environment Bill and the Emergency Management Bill (No 2).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ef33b4205adda8e56874a353e948537a\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d3b6b2477f8dbed88be251ab35b77a01\u0022\u003ENatural Environment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00223212c846c8a42ef384592b395a1d6044\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004098\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f6e5fad4e47206cb03356ca12076e258\u0022\u003EPart 1 Preliminary provisions, and Schedules 1 and 6 (continued)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228bd6de15f2417e6a19a29a3bbf4918c6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the committee has resumed. When we suspended for the lunch break, we were considering Part 1 of the Natural Environment Bill. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 10\u2014\u201CPreliminary provisions\u201D\u2014Schedule 1, \u201CTransitional, savings, and related provisions\u201D; and Schedule 6, \u201CStatutory acknowledgements\u201D. Once again, the question is that Part 1 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EBefore I take a call, I\u2019m just going to note that the previous Chair mentioned to me that we are past talking about the purpose in this bill and that we\u2019ve moved forward from there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022d00d45a8590bc349885e4e92e9fe4956\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d00d45a8590bc349885e4e92e9fe4956\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (14:57)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair\u2014that seems like a fair assessment. I\u2019m just going to take a very short call here; I\u2019ve had some more substantive calls. I\u2019m going to go to Schedule 6, but we\u2019ve had some conversation on Schedule 1, and Schedule 1 incorporates Schedule 11 of the Planning Bill. There were quite a lot of amendments to Schedule 11 of the Planning Bill that directly affect these issues in the Natural Environment Bill. Other speakers may have contributions to make about that; I think I\u2019ve done my dash.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022041f0b7d6c71a5813235976bf319c7e0\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s fine\u2014just make sure I know what page you\u2019re on, because you know this better than I do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222fe9fb5e2c6d44a717ae6660be163332\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, and I\u2019m not there yet, but I will get there now. So Schedule 6 is at page 331, and it\u2019s just a simple question to the member in the chair, Simon Court: this list of statutory acknowledgments\u2014and I think it\u2019s the same list that is in the Planning Bill as well\u2014is it curtailed at all? Are there ones missing, and if so, why? Why are they missing, is my question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00222a2daf9e4ff59bd1209624ded9463c2a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222a2daf9e4ff59bd1209624ded9463c2a\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (14:59)\u003C/span\u003E: To the member the Hon Rachel Brooking, it\u2019s the same list as in the Planning Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u002291d25e2ff4816d13100f670ca9e21d4e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002291d25e2ff4816d13100f670ca9e21d4e\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (14:59)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaking to that schedule, the bill does seem to draw directly on the schedule that is also appended to the Planning Bill, as the member in the chair, Simon Court, has said, but there are different considerations for the natural environment that are recorded in arrangements with iwi organisations. For example, the T\u0101maki Makaurau settlement bill, which settles all 19 iwi and has statutory acknowledgments which are only about the natural character and the outstanding character of, say, the T\u016Bpuna Maunga in Auckland and the Hauraki Gulf, are not planning considerations in nature. They have been left out of the Planning Bill, but it does not make sense to not include them in the schedule for the Natural Environment Bill when they will be directly engaged. Things like the Ruapehu settlements, things like the Aoraki Matat\u016B maunga that is a schedulised part of the Ng\u0101 Tahu Claims Settlement Act, which is a 1996 Act, are much more similar to the Te Ture Whaimana arrangements, which have been agreed and lifted up to the primary legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is not just about the cultural commitments that have been included in Schedule 1 and not just the commercial considerations, which are also in Schedule 11, but about those arrangements which are unique in nature, that exist, that are not planning instruments, that are about outstanding natural landscapes and are about the way that natural environment\u2014say, visual amenity\u2014will be included in a community\u2019s regional plan. Those have not been included in the Natural Environment Bill because it has just been lifted from the Planning Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo the question really for the member in the chair is: what else is missing? Did he consider, and was he advised on, the difference between just including this core group of arrangements which are purely planning arrangements? Was there a larger list that he looked at and struck out?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022825dd453268bfcf73fc043559d045c41\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022825dd453268bfcf73fc043559d045c41\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (15:01)\u003C/span\u003E: For the member Arena Williams\u2019 benefit, yes, the Minister and I did take advice and consider it at length. The reasons why certain Treaty settlements should be specifically referred to in the bill, such as the Waikato River settlement, and why others which were less complex could essentially be resolved were the Crown has obligations to uphold Treaty settlement redress to the greatest extent possible\u2014and we\u2019ve provided time frames for that. It\u2019s set out in clauses 9 and 10.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u0022b420d2a153358b67cdc4e916c137d459\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b420d2a153358b67cdc4e916c137d459\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (15:02)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. At the very close of the discussion before the break, we were talking about Te Ture Whaimana in Part 10. And there\u2019s a specific question regarding that because, as the Minister articulated and acknowledged, the tension in the pausing of PC1\u2014Plan Change 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy question is: given that Te Ture Whaimana is the vision and strategy for the Waikato and Waip\u0101 Rivers, which is legally entrenched for the Waikato and Waip\u0101 Rivers through the Treaty settlement legislation, including the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 and the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Act 2012\u2014the Waikato River Authority was established through legislation as an independent statutory body to be the custodian of Te Ture Whaimana. It\u2019s particularly crucial because the Crown has made a statutory settlement commitment relating to the rivers, including commitments that Te Ture Whaimana be given effect through the regional planning framework.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo the question is: how is it possible to give effect to that Treaty settlement while pausing Plan Change 1, which is the regulatory pathway developed to give effect to Te Ture Whaimana? And what assessment has the Government taken on the impact on that Treaty settlement, and what certainty does the Government have that it is not a breach of the Treaty settlement to stop the regulatory pathway for effecting Te Ture Whaimana?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, of course, the key issue here is that in the legislation, this section of it has the appearance of giving with one hand and taking away with the other, and that is certainly the way that it\u2019s interpreted by Waikato-Tainui.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022e4c4af2257866c3a18d40674548d0f31\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e4c4af2257866c3a18d40674548d0f31\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (15:04)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. It\u2019s always wonderful when a self-appointed spokesperson for iwi M\u0101ori turns up in the Chamber.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225672d6f507f9d251883cd01e32f1d7dc\u0022\u003ESteve Abel\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Madam Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ec77cc5c1147849332b3fc0aba62e3b5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Steve Abel. I know what the point of order is going to be, and I don\u2019t think that was a fair response, Simon Court. So I ask you\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a59cb98d4f585e424b890f31b4863750\u0022\u003ESteve Abel\u003C/span\u003E: I am certainly not appointed as a spokesperson for Waikato-Tainui. We have had direct correspondence with Waikato-Tainui, and they appreciate any member of the House raising their profound concerns with this issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d9e16d93f5a08f74b96c24d47d6dd41d\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll respond to the member\u2019s question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224f208db7eccf7ecb19f125e6b1d2bf92\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Simon Court.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eb5bacb7eaebe20ae6c7c59962f5ce8e\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: The legislation\u2019s very clear. We\u2019ve covered extensively in discussion on exactly the same mirrored clause of the Planning Bill that Te Ture Whaimana is intended by Parliament to be the primary direction-setting document for the Waikato and Waip\u0101 Rivers and so on, and it has the same effect in the new system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe member raised a question: what about Plan Change 1 (PC1)? In the legislation, it says that when the Waikato is making a new plan, plan-makers, decision-makers will have regard to PC1. But we\u2019re also clear: there\u2019s a new system. We have concepts like environmental limits, and so, of course, when a new plan is created, Te Ture Whaimana will continue to be the primary direction-setting document for the Waikato and Waip\u0101 Rivers. It will be in the context of the new system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s because this Government is very clear: we seek to have a system which provides transparency, particularly around the trade-offs for setting environmental limits, whether it\u2019s fresh water or other domains; whereas currently, there is very little transparency. When an ecological limit or bottom line or standard is proposed by council and then adopted, it\u2019s not clear whether trade-offs around economic prosperity, around social values, around community values have actually been taken into account.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETe Ture Whaimana is intended by Parliament to be the primary direction-setting document for the Waikato and Waip\u0101 Rivers. Decision makers will have to have regard to Plan Change 1 and that\u2019s also in the context of the new system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229bd7ace8c9cf60e1a6c7afbe0f6ab0d5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m going to take a supplementary from Steve Abel, but I will warn we\u2019re getting very close to the end of this part, to all members. And I just want questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u002204a0ece8a1f1bceb42a2385a48c28f74\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002204a0ece8a1f1bceb42a2385a48c28f74\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (15:06)\u003C/span\u003E: You will recall, Madam Chair, a very specific part of my first question was what assessment the Government had made as to the risk to a Treaty breach the pausing of Plan Change 1 would be, given its vital necessity in fulfilling the obligations of Te Ture Whaimana, being it is the regulatory pathway to fulfilling that Treaty obligation. So it\u2019s just asking the member in the chair, Simon Court, to clarify what evaluations and what advice has he received on the risk to a Treaty breach of the pausing of Plan Change 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00228fae88ce9a70b578ca63263887a90261\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228fae88ce9a70b578ca63263887a90261\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (15:07)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member Steve Abel for the question. During the course of developing policy and taking decisions, Minister Bishop and I have had extensive advice on a range of matters, including the Crown\u2019s obligations to M\u0101ori, including the Crown\u2019s obligations to iwi who have a Treaty settlement with the Crown, and on how to make sure that to the greatest extent possible, we continue to give effect to the settlements. So I can assure the member that we have had extensive advice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002292d2730ada3a863aedc11b13b32e48ba\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The only other person that was on her feet in the last call was Arena Williams. And I\u2019ll take a question only, not a speech.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u00227e4c929b93b0c048f8e49d50ad81c5b7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227e4c929b93b0c048f8e49d50ad81c5b7\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (15:08)\u003C/span\u003E: Yup, questions about clause 10B, inserted by Amendment Paper 710, at page 44. I want to ask the member in the chair, Simon Court, about the Te Arawa Lakes settlement and the regulations under it\u2014that is a 2006 settlement. I think what\u2019s happening with (c) and its insertion alongside the completely new insertion here, is to allow for\u2014essentially, if any other instruments are inconsistent with those regulations, then the regulations prevail. But what we\u2019ve got here in the Te Arawa Lakes settlement example is a set of regulations which are made by both the iwi and the council. So we have a way for iwi here to make rules which prevail not only over and above the national policy statement and the national coastal statement, but also the primary legislation\u2014is that right?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAnd I want to ask: the six taonga ika, which are protected by that piece of legislation, which are \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Ek\u014Daro, k\u014Dura, \u012Bnanga, tuna, morihana,and k\u0101kahi\u003C/span\u003E\u2014is that intended to just be in the context of Te Arawa Lakes, or is it the case that those regulations prevailing over other instruments are intended to set a standard for fisheries which in a customary context are being protected by that 10B(1) provision, which the member has introduced?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002215f5adb3d896cc6b396505533996ab83\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002215f5adb3d896cc6b396505533996ab83\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (15:10)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you for the question. I\u2019ve been advised that these clauses are the same as the Resource Management Act and the rules cannot amend customary fishing rights.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022 data-id=\u0022e77ef8175a7e400a9b763884e286da5f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e77ef8175a7e400a9b763884e286da5f\u0022\u003ECATHERINE WEDD (National\u2014Tukituki) (15:10)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c876a212cf112b23a887aa3e30944733\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I just remind members on both sides, and at the end of the Chamber, to be quiet while we\u2019re voting. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 710 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002279a940a295316f88552d34045d88c635\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendment to clause 3 set out on Amendment Paper 686 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b1f9b0f574eef257a4948193191b3404\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Lan Pham\u2019s amendments to clause 3 set out on Amendment Paper 712 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002283f55530d2871eae0f7cf8038d79d39d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s amendments to clauses 3 and 9 set out on Amendment Paper 739 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s amendment to clause 10 set out on Amendment Paper 739 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eb64fdc0ac8ee40f5180ee5177557f7a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendment replacing clause 4 set out on Amendment Paper 688 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002244ce6636b8ce1708f38e3815e9deb011\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s amendment replacing clause 4 set out on Amendment Paper 714 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022339841dcc3c6ce368c001b8fddbdabbf\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s amendment replacing clause 8 set out on Amendment Paper 748 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002253d68688d58f17297d44ed237039131a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendment inserting clause 8(1) set out on Amendment Paper 689 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cc7cc8c7f3ab5ac756130f559d253b15\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Lan Pham\u2019s amendment to clause 8 set out on Amendment Paper 703 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b3d2f08066c9e60e11b19361d509acf\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s tabled amendment inserting new clause 10A is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Part 1 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 1 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002265f391e624c87cc6d2d87f972362061b\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u00224895b207e1bd3f124aa540c7f3a9ec85\u0022\u003EPart 2 Foundations\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224de16208ab00a9af903fcce84e86c892\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to Part 2, which is the debate on clauses 11 to 90\u2014\u201CFoundations\u201D. The question is that Part 2 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u002246b33c0b510653655a6d7d5ffb1e15e2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002246b33c0b510653655a6d7d5ffb1e15e2\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (15:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just note that, as you just did, Part 2 is \u201CFoundations\u201D and there are no schedules to this part. In fact, I think all the remaining schedules go with Part 4, so we\u2019ll leave the back of the bill for now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnyway, I want to get on to the goals. We were talking when the Minister was in the chair before, rather than the member who\u2019s in the chair now, a lot about the interaction between the purpose statement and the goals and an absence of hierarchy, and how this is a big, in my opinion and the opinion of almost all the experts who gave advice to the Environment Committee, hot mess\u2014my words.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think we need to have some discussion on that, but before I go into that I will refer the chair to my Amendment Paper 687, and this is a replacement of the goals with some different goals. But, actually, the replacements are very similar except that they go to clause 11(1)(f), which is \u201Cto provide for M\u0101ori interests through\u2014\u201D, and my goal harks back to section 6(e) of the Resource Management Act; and then in clause 11(1)(d)\u2014rather than what was originally \u201Cno net loss in\u201D but changed in AP 710 \u201Cto protect \u2026 biodiversity:\u201D, I have \u201Cto protect and restore \u2026 ecological integrity,\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also have made a change to the first paragraph, which is paragraph (a): \u201Cto enable the use and development of natural resources, including for the production of food and fibre (including aquaculture):\u201D, and the change here is to insert \u201C, within environmental limits\u201D. That\u2019s important because, as the bill was introduced, there was the term \u201Cwithin environmental limits\u201D and then this got taken out at the Environment Committee by majority. That is a real problem, because we\u2019ve had the Minister in the chair earlier today talk about how he is committed to pieces of legislation that do allow for and enable development within environmental limits. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo here is that phrase. It was in the bill as introduced\u2014\u201Cenable the use and development \u2026 within environmental limits\u201D and that has now been removed. One of my questions to the member in the chair, Simon Court, is: why has that been removed, and does that use and development of natural resources still have to be within environmental limits?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI note that in question time just now, Lan Pham was asking the Minister responsible for RMA Reform about limits, and he was saying that this is \u201Ca massive step forward on the RMA\u201D\u2014that\u2019s the quote from him\u2014to have limits. But where are they in the goals now that they\u2019ve been removed? That\u2019s one question, and that\u2019s a huge issue. I\u2019m sure other people will have other amendments on that issue, as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWould he consider having the wording from section 6(e) of the RMA in there rather than what is in clause 11(f) of this bill, and then I have another change\u2014which I also had in the Planning Bill\u2014in Amendment Paper 687, and that is to insert a new clause 11(3A) at the end, which says, \u201CWhere goals are in conflict, the purpose of this Act (as set out in section 4)\u201D\u2014which I would have changed\u2014\u201Cmust be used to reconcile the differences between the goals.\u201D That is an attempt\u2014an inelegant attempt\u2014to try to have some sort of hierarchy here which would go to the purpose and then the goals, rather than having to rely on the Minister all the time, through national direction, to try to resolve any conflict between goals.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThose are a few questions on it. I won\u2019t address the term \u201Cno net loss in significant indigenous biodiversity\u201D in this contribution, but I would like to ask the member in the chair to answer that question about why we have got rid of \u201Cwithin environmental limits\u201D if that\u2019s the whole purpose of the scheme. Can we bring it back, and can we bring back section 6(e),  and can we also have my idea of having some sort of hierarchy at subclause (3A)? Thank you, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022da42345b19ac987259c63e9417bd4ebc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022da42345b19ac987259c63e9417bd4ebc\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (15:23)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member the Hon Rachel Brooking for her questions. I\u2019ll just start with her question around why the \u201Cwithin \u2026 limits\u201D phrase was removed from the first goal, to \u201Cenable the use and development of natural resources, including for the production of food and fibre ( including aquaculture). It\u2019s quite simple: limits play an important role in the system, but they are not the only way that the natural environmental impacts on the natural environment are managed. There are other tools.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf we conceive the system as a funnel\u2014I know the member has proposed that maybe it\u2019s not a funnel, but that\u2019s how it\u2019s conceived\u2014we start with the goals, we move down to national direction, national policy direction, standards, spatial plans, and regulatory plans. There are many opportunities in the system to identify where impacts on the environment can be managed in the context of the Natural Environment Bill and the Planning Bill, which we discussed this morning. It is not all about limits; they are but one tool.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe member had a question about hierarchy. There is no hierarchy in the goals. We\u2019ve been very clear\u2014I refer the member to clause 11(2) in Amendment Paper 710, \u201CSubsection 1 does not require a key instrument to seek to achieve all goals in all places at all times.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002284f9f5f6217958ed0143db9513f823ee\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Hope you like that wording.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022327c920e298f343d36f1674f1676cea7\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: I invite any member who wishes to ask a question to ask that question, but I\u2019ll respond to the member that I\u2019m responding to in the first instance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s important, when we consider that there are many things we do in the natural environment, which is what this bill is all about, that we still need to produce food, we need to operate infrastructure, and we need to have access to natural resources for social, economic, and health reasons. So, rather than trying to imagine that every time we seek to access natural resources for human wellbeing, we have to somehow work through a hierarchy of goals before we get to work out whether we should be able to access these resources and use them for human flourishing, we\u2019re very clear that there are trade-offs to be made.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThose trade-offs are to be made at the national policy direction - setting level, and I urge those listening and watching the debate to have a look at the Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport website, where an illustrative national policy direction setting out the key themes has been provided for non-statutory consultation, so that those interested in how this is going to work can see for themselves. I urge the member to download a copy and bring it to the Chamber. A lot of the questions that we\u2019ve been getting over the past few days will, I believe, be resolved by looking at that document as a starter for ten.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u0022d4f347634e7d87ff021fed1c4c9523da\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d4f347634e7d87ff021fed1c4c9523da\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (15:26)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. It\u2019s really great to get on to this \u201CGoals\u201D clause, because it does have implications for the entirety of the bill. I think the direction, which is under it\u2014because we\u2019ve established that the \u201CPurpose\u201D clause is a clause with no purpose, it\u2019s really important that the goals themselves have potentially some form of direction. I\u2019m really interested in the Minister\u2019s responses to one of my first Amendment Papers proposed for the goals in clause 11. Really, this is around\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bf410f8e4830c89b4bea3ba6fb0a2a10\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Which number is the amendment?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022157472d4f78b935384d649548306d731\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, the Amendment Paper is Amendment Paper 670. The aspect that I\u2019m interested in is what the member\u2019s perspective is about whether the goals are, essentially, meaningless if the Minister only has to seek to achieve all of them and can prioritise them in any manner they see fit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy Amendment Paper would delete the words \u201Cseek to achieve the following goals\u201D. I accept that in the national direction, the Minister has this huge discretion, but what could possibly be the justification of doing that if, basically, there is no other direction elsewhere in the bill other than that simply being the Minister\u2019s whim? If there was further direction about the actual achievement of the goals, could this be one way forward where there is actually some impetus on decision makers to actually achieve something?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to pick up as well on the first goal, which is paragraph (a), and I want to pick up on this specifically because it was hugely disappointing at the select committee\u2014and sorry, just for people\u2019s understanding, this is the clause around enabling the actual use and development of natural resources. What came in, not actually at the select committee level but on top of the select committee\u2014came straight in as ministerial direction\u2014was this reference to \u201Cthe production of food and fibre (including aquaculture)\u201D. That was, essentially, a shout-out to these industry lobby groups.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe reason why it was that is that officials made it really clear to us at the select committee\u2014and some of the select committee members are here and will appreciate and remember this\u2014that this is meaningless. They said that the goal already includes the use and development of food and fibre, including aquaculture, but they still wanted it established at the heart of this legislation just as a shout-out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy question to the Minister is: what is his perspective on the heart of our resource management legislation having such inappropriate shout-outs to industry, and whether he would consider my other Amendment Paper, which is to reinstate \u201Cwithin environmental limits\u201D within that clause, because that is the one that was removed and that\u2019s the one that would actually set up our country and our economy to function.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I\u2019m really interested in that. I\u2019ve got other amendments on these clauses, but I\u2019ll leave it there for now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002247037002e407e3055e815b97e93d5435\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002247037002e407e3055e815b97e93d5435\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (15:30)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for her contribution. I know she has a great interest in the natural environment. The Natural Environment Bill is something that I know she wants to see improved. Now, her contention that the goals are meaningless\u2014absolutely reject. The goals provide direction on the outcome sought under the Natural Environment Bill and support delivery of its purpose. It should be clear to all members of the committee. If I have to say it again, I\u2019ll say it again, but that\u2019s the purpose of the goals.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe member contended that in seeking to achieve the goals, instruments such as national policy direction are made on the whim of a Minister. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is an extensive process set out about the making of national instruments, including matters that the maker and decision maker must consider.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe member\u2019s question around food and fibre: according to many New Zealanders, and it is the belief of this Government, that food and fibre production is nationally important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe member had a further question around: would the Government be prepared to consider her Amendment Paper proposing to add back in the \u201Cwithin limits\u201D phrase to the goal \u201Cenable the use and development of natural resources, including the production of food and fibre (including aquaculture)\u201D? No, Lan Pham, we will not be prepared to consider that. As I explained to the member Rachel Brooking, in answer to your previous question, limit setting is one important feature of the system, but limit setting is not the only way that we protect the natural environment and allow for development and growing food and all of these other things to be done in a way that responds to community need, to our economic imperatives, and to the social outcomes that we seek to realise from being able to develop and use and enjoy our natural environment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u00222899fee41562688cacfbdef37daebe92\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222899fee41562688cacfbdef37daebe92\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (15:33)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the member in the chair, Simon Court, about clause 11(1)(f), which is the goal \u201Cto provide for M\u0101ori interests\u201D. I have a couple of different questions about how that is intended to work when it is one of many goals. This might have made a little bit more sense in the planning context, but the environmental context it is a little bit different where you have, often, through the development of our resource management law, over many, many years, alignment between M\u0101ori interests and kaitiakitanga, that it was the formulation, I think, at section 6(e) of the Resource Management Act (RMA). And so we have built into our planning system a degree of those environmental protections, safeguarding, stewardship, those concepts being closely associated with M\u0101ori interests as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo, first question to him is: does he expect the courts to now pass that out? Is that going to be dealt with quite separately under his regime? Really, it\u2019s a question about\u2014we\u2019ve spoken a little bit about how the goals are all given the same importance; that clause 11(1)(a), here, \u201Cto enable the use and development of natural resources\u201D is meant to be of the same importance as the goal (f) \u201Cto provide for M\u0101ori interests\u201D and the goal (e) \u201Cto safeguard against natural hazards\u201D. With that in mind, how does he justify the Parliament not resolving, here, the conflict, but the Minister having a role in resolving that conflict? What I\u2019m getting at here is, under the RMA, in the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EKing Salmon\u003C/span\u003E decision, it was possible for judges to have what they called an overall broad judgment, because Parliament had already indicated its hierarchy of decisions, and so it was possible for the court to say, \u201CWell, you can\u2019t just say that economic development is the purpose that you\u2019re relying on because they are similar\u201D. So the court was able to use a broad judgment because there was that hierarchy. Now there\u2019s not that hierarchy. So what I\u2019m asking the member in the chair to clarify is whether in Parliament not resolving the conflict it intends for the court to provide, now, an entirely holus-bolus broad judgment, where it is required to make the decision or whether it\u2019s intended to be looking at the national policy direction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA follow-up question to that, in relation to M\u0101ori interest only, is could one Government\u2019s national policy direction on how you\u2019re meant to give effect to the M\u0101ori interest provision swing wildly between, say, a National-led Government and a Labour-led Government? This is a practical question because when we\u2019re looking at how the courts are meant to interpret this, they would usually not make that assumption that Parliament\u2019s job is to resolve how that goal is interpreted, not a Minister\u2019s interpretation. And yet that seems to be what leaving (f) as a goal that is equally as important to (a) actually sets up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227b29970631d68535f7e4a99b9f98c6d9\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: In so much as Simon Court knows what any Minister\u2019s future interpretation might be.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022d4cdea0ce7f291c219e5ee50aaaf170d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d4cdea0ce7f291c219e5ee50aaaf170d\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (15:36)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair, for the guidance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question that the member asked was in relation to the Resource Management Act, section 6E, I think you described it as, where there\u2019s a hierarchy. There is no hierarchy in the goals. When looking at clause 11(1)(f), in the way that the legislation intends to provide for M\u0101ori interests, the member points out that it is different to the Resource Management Act. That is true, that is intentional. We\u2019ve been highly specific about that and we are confident that the way that M\u0101ori interests have provided for is in the spirit of Crown and M\u0101ori relationship. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, it says quite specifically, \u201CM\u0101ori participation in the development of national instruments, regional spatial plans, and natural environment plans\u201D. It\u2019s very important. The member answered her own question. Do we intend that that is particularised through national policy direction? The answer is yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe member asked another question: do we expect the courts to make things up that are not in the law? No, absolutely not. The Attorney-General was clear in the speech that he gave to the Auckland Law Society, that it\u2019s Parliament\u2019s job to be clear in its law making, clear in its intent\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002210ae8912cde9db3df06c33b16d5880d9\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s why there was a hierarchy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f9a4c50704324a8a793c43300bc1f269\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014clear in its lawmaking, clear in its intent, which this legislation is, and the hierarchy or, potentially, if we had to rephrase it for the benefit of those listening or watching, I could, potentially, assume the member means resolving conflicts between outcomes and objectives.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo if the member thinks that every single potential conflict that we could possibly imagine could be resolved in legislation, that legislation would reach from the floor to the ceiling of this Chamber. We are not doing that for the member\u2019s benefit, for Arena Williams\u2019 benefit; we\u2019re not doing it for anyone\u2019s benefit. There certainly would be no benefit to New Zealand. So I urge the member to cast forward to when this legislation is implemented and when the national policy direction, that has the force of law and has gone through statutory consultation in the future and would provide for the conflict resolution that the member so desperately wishes to see in legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll come back to it: Parliament\u2019s job is to make laws, make them clear; the courts\u2019 job is to is to enforce the law. The Attorney-General was clear, I am clear, and that is our intention for this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, if members would bear with, I understand Minister Bishop wishes to return to the chair. If someone could go and grab the Minister, I would gladly vacate and let the members ask questions of the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022aaf2be0d0f73952ce9a09346ee2fae57\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022aaf2be0d0f73952ce9a09346ee2fae57\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (15:39)\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. Earlier today, I raised a point of order asking if we would be told when amendments from the Minister would be tabled. It appears that one has been tabled\u2014I might have missed it; I don\u2019t want to accuse anyone of not telling us that it had been tabled. We were given a nod or some noise in the affirmative that we would be told when amendments were tabled. It looks like there was one tabled at 2.11 p.m. on 27\u00A0August, and it is a very simple one: it is to delete clause 37. But when you go to the amendment bill\u2014I guess it\u2019s going back to the version as reported back from the select committee\u2014there is no clause 37 in his Amendment Paper. So the point of order is whether we can have clarity on what the\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d43fde08b298626264181d42e9ff1034\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019ve accepted the point of order around when was it tabled in the House, and I understand it was 2.11\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a4e0a9e9f79469573c67ed153c2cf298\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: We were in question time then.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227f7fb22f0f6eeddc9126b07de2db630c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. But in terms of the remainder of the question, then we start getting into the question to the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223e02a522670089ce1805c1f63549370b\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Sure. OK, well, are there going to be any more tabled amendments?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225cf6f6364385f78a543d5057c7e74157\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229064debde201cbba302251e222d7e772\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: OK. That\u2019s my point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223f57083c7a91e6ed42a8d2cefdb1b318\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: And no.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222086b8c3fcb8548dde5073cbc1d0738a\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: OK. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002279a49ca81c3f9f3af26c8c3777be19c5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Rachel Brooking\u2014we\u2019ll start your five minutes again\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a7a3215d0074f92657ec95082222eb9d\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: There might be one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226c044097c48ef46206766048370f643d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, there was just a response that said there might be one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d122a8345e69b1d7bf4460e59b083e6f\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: OK, going back to the point of order\u2014and I don\u2019t mind about the time, because I\u2019m not going to take five minutes\u2014if we could be told\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a1e414c62b77ca709fde1a7221a3bb9a\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: There may be one more.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224d9433a56b6591fae23c9919e1450cb8\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: OK, if we could be told\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225926a2973ae6a520f07846a72b0ec4a5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: There may be one, and I think the issue why the awareness wasn\u2019t there with this one was that it was during question time today in the House, so we weren\u2019t in committee. So as soon as we get it, we\u2019ll let you know.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f416599a9361f1295aabf1878c4e2d81\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019ll be great; thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cb492e2e1d343c006b3698a6bd698067\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Rachel Brooking. I think we\u2019ll start your five minutes again, because we\u2019ve been clarifying a few things\u2014there we go.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u002285e7dab360c01313a53f131e21b8e510\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002285e7dab360c01313a53f131e21b8e510\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (15:41)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Going back to the goals, now that the Minister is in the chair\u2014after I think being requested by the member to come back\u2014I would be interested in what seems to be a difference of opinion between the Minister and the member, and that is that the Minister has been saying, throughout this, that he wants there to be development within environmental limits. He said at question time that it\u2019s a massive step forward, from the Resource Management Act, that there are limits. But the member in the chair just said: \u201CIt\u2019s not all about limits. It is but one tool.\u201D, referring to limits. So if there is, in fact, a difference of opinion there, that would be useful to elucidate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s one point. Now, going back to clause 11, \u201CGoals\u201D, I\u2019ve already asked a question on it, but I have another published Amendment Paper, and that is 704, and it\u2019s now changed again. My question relates to paragraph (d). So on page 44, paragraph (d), as it was reported back, refers to \u201Cno net loss in indigenous biodiversity\u201D. I think my amendment was to get rid of the \u201Cnet\u201D there\u2014\u201Cno loss in indigenous biodiversity\u201D. But now it\u2019s been changed by the Amendment Paper to protect \u201Csignificant indigenous biodiversity\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo it would be good for the Minister to comment on why that change has been made and what happens to the concept of net loss, when throughout much of the rest of the bill, there is talk of offsetting and compensation. How does that, then, link to the goals? Is it to do with protection or is it to do with something else? Do we, in fact, need no loss in indigenous biodiversity, and also its protection\u2014do we need both of those terms? And then\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002209968f54cd616a8c86e814efa3bc3fbf\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m happy to take a call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ef99258294f13d79dd8357137da24d4e\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: OK, I\u2019ll let the Minister go. I\u2019ve got one more question on this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022c08b5917c0418bc3173469873ab48849\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c08b5917c0418bc3173469873ab48849\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (15:44)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m happy to take a call on this one, but I think it\u2019s an important point and I\u2019m pleased the member\u2019s noticed it. We received quite a bit of feedback, both through the select committee process and also, subsequently, in engagement with stakeholders from the broader environmental non-governmental organisation movement, or ENGOs, as they are known. The \u201Cno net loss\u201D\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002261e630e608767796d0fde57d2624e495\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: They\u2019re great, aren\u2019t they? Great resource.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228b835b5cf0be44ee4f87ffacf84d1c19\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014OK\u2014concept was difficult and confusing. I mean, it sort of begs the question: if your goal is no net loss, are you therefore saying that things are fine at the moment, because clearly they are not? So if the goal is, like, literally just to keep things so we can\u2019t have any net loss\u2014if your starting point is pretty bad, which I think most people would say it is, then the goal of no net loss is a relatively unambitious target. But then other people thought it meant other things.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ESo, anyway, we just took all that on board and said, \u201CWell, OK, let\u2019s just be clear about this. It\u2019s a goal to protect\u201D\u2014which is a stronger, more directive frame, but obviously the devil\u2019s in the details with the national direction and standards that flow from that. That is how some of the concepts that the member mentioned around offsetting and things come into it. It may be that in particular parts of the country, you don\u2019t want to lift biodiversity protections over time, and in other parts of the country you\u2019re prepared to make the trade-offs. I mean, the short answer is it depends, but the net loss concept was causing complications and confusions, and it\u2019s a bit odd to have a quantification concept in a goal as well. If you look at the rest of the goals, it\u2019s to protect, safeguard, enable, provide for, support\u2014there are more active verbs rather than just to have no net loss. It just sat a bit uncomfortably. That was the feedback and we agreed, so we made the change.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00229702996ea64c6bf9363806c48ff8660e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229702996ea64c6bf9363806c48ff8660e\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (15:46)\u003C/span\u003E: Just two supplementaries on that. My other question was around whether the \u201Cno net loss\u201D concept does feed in to ideas of offsetting and compensation, and we can deal with that later, but if the Minister wants to comment on that, in a minute.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMy second supplementary is: with this change, does it now need to be significant indigenous biodiversity, so the \u201Cno net loss\u201D was just to indigenous biodiversity and there was no caveat or qualifier of \u201Csignificant\u201D? I take the point about what he just said in terms of verbs, and the like. Where does it fit with new paragraph (ca), which is to support and enable the enhancement of the natural environment? Does he see that the protection of insignificant indigenous biodiversity, or indigenous biodiversity that doesn\u2019t reach that significance test\u2014would that still be caught by (ca), which is \u201Cto support and enable the enhancement of the natural environment\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022105b0347cff11a23230ddf174173bb4a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022105b0347cff11a23230ddf174173bb4a\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (15:47)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s a good question. The short point is, the way I would characterise it is the natural environment is a broad concept, indigenous biodiversity is a subset, and the goal is sending a message that the system should protect significant indigenous biodiversity, because that\u2019s something special and unique to New Zealand, and something that\u2019s worthy of protection and worthy of specific recognition and mentioning in \u201CGoals\u201D as worthy of protecting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThis is not to say non-significant indigenous biodiversity is not important\u2014it is\u2014but it\u2019s just a marker. And you can see this through the national policy direction framing document as well\u2014that significant indigenous biodiversity is something that is part and parcel of the system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b7ab70001f112662e33e6d78a618cd6e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Lan Pham has indicated she has a supp.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u0022b89e491b65883390536b7e74e20985ec\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b89e491b65883390536b7e74e20985ec\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (15:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair\u2014absolutely, on this topic, and really keen to consolidate it in one, because it is a really important topic. Thank you to the Minister for his comments around accepting that the starting point, where we are at with biodiversity, is pretty bad\u2014those were his words. Does he accept, though, that simply protecting only areas of significant indigenous biodiversity will, in itself, lead to a loss of biodiversity, particularly when we know that the bar for even identifying these areas of significant biodiversity is so much higher and has so much more cost and barriers for councils under the regulatory relief framework?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI don\u2019t want to go to regulatory relief yet, because we\u2019re going to get there more fulsomely, but what I am interested in is the Minister\u2019s concept and understanding of that, in particular. He\u2019s just said that significant biodiversity is important. The member Rachel Brooking talked about, well, what about that biodiversity that doesn\u2019t meet that bar?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI have an Amendment Paper that would help with this so that we\u2019re not only protecting significant areas but we\u2019re protecting those areas of indigenous biodiversity generally. What I\u2019m proposing, which I\u2019d really appreciate the Minister\u2019s feedback on, is in Amendment Paper 712, and this is the last bit of that. First, it\u2019s about amending the goals to protect areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna along with the protection of wetlands.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, why it\u2019s so important to specify these things is we know that depending on the region that you\u2019re in in the country, the remaining biodiversity is somewhere between 1\u00A0percent and at best 10 percent. There are some regions who are managing to buck that trend, like Te P\u0101taka-o-R\u0101kaihaut\u016B / Banks Peninsula. We know that due to an incredible effort at the community level with councils and iwi and the papatipu r\u016Bnanga there, they are actually changing the biodiversity trajectory and getting more towards 20 percent biodiversity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, what is critical with this Amendment Paper is that it\u2019s actually changing the definition of \u201Csignificant indigenous vegetation\u201D and also \u201Csignificant habitat of indigenous fauna\u201D. Given we know that any shred of biodiversity that we have remaining in this country is important\u2014sorry, is the Minister clear where I\u2019m\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e182cfda16a323468dfd18f41f3abad\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah. I thought you were amending the definition of Part 1, but you\u2019re not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022154167825a87062d853bafe7ac78ad38\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah. Thank you\u2014thank you. I\u2019m really interested in that, because what we\u2019ve heard really clearly, even in the environmental non-governmental organisations responding to these last-minute Amendment Papers that have changed the settings with no net loss changing to significant indigenous biodiversity, they\u2019re saying you can\u2019t have one without the other. Now if you\u2019re raising the bar to significant only being protected, if you don\u2019t have that no net loss at least to hold the line, then we will be without the general vegetation clearance rules that, as I understand, are no longer available under these Acts. We\u2019re in a real serious situation when it comes to biodiversity decline, so I\u2019m really interested in the Minister responsible for RMA Reform\u2019s thoughts on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u002224b55a26c6a945f4dbc23a94337307b0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002224b55a26c6a945f4dbc23a94337307b0\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (15:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah. I mean, I understand where the member\u2019s coming from, but the short point is I don\u2019t think we need the definition in the goals, as the member essentially proposes. Some of the stuff that she was talking about I would regard as falling within clause 11(1)(d), \u201Cindigenous biodiversity\u201D, but also 11(1)(ca) which is \u201Csupport and enable the enhancement of the natural environment:\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe key is not so much the precise words in the goals; the key is the national direction that flows from that, and the key is that the goals are the hook for the national direction. You can\u2019t do anything that\u2019s not in the goals, but it\u2019s very clear that the stuff the member was talking about would fall within both of those goals.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u002212dc70cf9956fab1fb6786b4c256cb47\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002212dc70cf9956fab1fb6786b4c256cb47\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (15:53)\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister responsible for RMA Reform accept that for biodiversity generally that does not meet the significance threshold, which is the majority of scraps of biodiversity\u2014the remnant pockets that remain\u2014biodiversity is at risk under these goals?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022e0594f6fcfad73ab3cf2d844a5c4f445\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e0594f6fcfad73ab3cf2d844a5c4f445\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (15:53)\u003C/span\u003E: No\u2014no. No, I don\u2019t, because for the reasons I just said, which is that it would fall within\u2014I\u2019ve answered this like three times now. It would fall within \u201Csupport and enable the enhancement of the natural environment\u201D, which is a broader heading of things. There\u2019s a specific goal which I think the member actually should support, which is to say that for areas of significant biodiversity, that\u2019s a specific goal of the legislation, to enable the protection of significant indigenous biodiversity, because that\u2019s something that\u2019s unique to New Zealand and is special and we need to protect, for the reasons that the member, I\u2019m sure, agrees with around why biodiversity is important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u002224031d091f18d3342390260f29ff620e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002224031d091f18d3342390260f29ff620e\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (15:54)\u003C/span\u003E: So, Minister, are general protections for biodiversity that are not mapped available as a tool to protect those remnant areas, those scraps of a part of a wetland here or dryland ecosystem here\u2014are they available under these Acts? Really keen on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022bfc95b10e7503a19186cc322f9904f98\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bfc95b10e7503a19186cc322f9904f98\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (15:54)\u003C/span\u003E: I just want to ask about these great words here. These great words: clause 11(2) uses the words \u201Cin all places at all times.\u201D Simon Court, the member in the chair prior to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, and I had a bit of a back and forth about this and he invited me to take a question on this. I do enjoy these words. They are likely your words personally, Minister. Where did they come from is the first question. Is that a permission to trade off? Where you\u2019ve said that above from clause 11(1)(a) through (f) it doesn\u2019t make sense to have a quantification concept, those are also not trade-off concepts. There isn\u2019t a limit that needs to be balanced, and yet this does seem to introduce that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESpecifically, I want to ask about \u201Cplaces\u201D. Are we to interpret places there to mean that there are places where the goal of safeguarding the environment\u2019s quality is the goal and isn\u2019t the goal? Like, are there places where the goal should be specifically, say, in line with clause 11(1)(a)? Is that the intention of that inclusion of the word \u201Cplaces\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen in the inclusion of the word \u201Ctime\u201D, do we mean, like, is there an example of a time when safeguarding, say, the life-supporting capacity of air and water would not be necessary? You can imagine the situation when this also sets up for national instruments to give preference in a non - nationally consistent way because that use of the idea that some places will, I guess, be of greater natural value than others and at different times seems to introduce an entirely new way of thinking about that. How does that compare\u2014because this is broadly something that most people would agree with, but how are we meant to understand how that\u2019s going to affect the places that communities really care about where they are seeking greater environmental safeguards when you might think that this clause 11(2) gave them more protections, but that they needed to be traded off against other areas? Is that what people can expect from that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022765b13fa7f0676143f0ba94ce644ee76\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m going to take a call from Steve Abel. I will just say that we\u2019ve spent quite a bit of time on the goals, but I\u2019m not precluding Steve Abel from asking a question in that space. This is my indication that I think we need to move on from the goals\u2014and a wee one from Rachel Brooking.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u0022f79e81a0ce9da93a18bb4e4ac8430ba4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f79e81a0ce9da93a18bb4e4ac8430ba4\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (15:57)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah. The goals are very important. I hear your point, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002237a501f750a5523155e43110d9e60665\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I know they\u2019re important, but we\u2019ve spent substantial time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002239d9525939ecdda0b873e96cd84c5781\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: I still think we don\u2019t have exact clarity, and I think Arena Williams\u2019 question is important as well. The previous member in the seat, Simon Court, articulated that there was no intention to have a hierarchy in the goals. If the objective is to avoid trade-offs, which is a problem of the sort of death by a thousand cuts issue that we have with the environment\u2014we\u2019re constantly trading off economic activity for environmental protection\u2014then I put it to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform that having at least a first hierarchy weighting given to clause 11(1)(b) is necessary. Lan Pham\u2019s Amendment Paper 711 directly addresses this. It makes sure that the logic of the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems is the first goal or the most important priority in the hierarchy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf that is not done, then I think, Minister, we risk the sort of hubris that there can be some sort of lasting human thriving without us first safeguarding the life-supporting capacity. We all agree we want human society to thrive, but it cannot reasonably do that without supporting a life-supporting capacity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFirst of all, just the clarity as to why there is no hierarchy, and would the Minister consider making what is currently (b) something that needs to be achieved as the priority in the goals? That gives logic to the intention of the legislation, given it\u2019s the Natural Environment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI have a second amendment, which specifically makes sure that in paragraph (d), to protect and enhance\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223f098f652606cbe281c2cf7e1e7c79e2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s the number of the amendment?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e20ae2db76c726f568820e7dee31a4c7\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, 724. It\u2019s another excellent one from Lan Pham\u2014724, that (d), replacing clause 11(1)(d), becomes \u201Cto protect and enhance indigenous biodiversity\u201D, including urban trees and urban biodiversity, to make sure that they are captured. The Minister laughs; he laughs so much that we love urban trees, but he\u2019ll know all about it when they start disappearing even more. I wonder if he would consider that. But the greater overarching principle is the problem of a thousand cuts and that we need to protect the principle of life-supporting capacity as the priority.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u002251897675d8e3a55c05b8b4a7ec526878\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002251897675d8e3a55c05b8b4a7ec526878\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (16:01)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah. I mean, I sort of feel like we\u2019ve covered this a lot, including in the last bill and now this bill. There is no hierarchy, OK? That\u2019s a deliberate policy choice, and we\u2019ve sort of canvassed as to why that is. The member started his contribution by saying, \u201COh, there seems to be a desire to avoid trade-offs.\u201D The opposite is the case. That\u2019s the point: all of this stuff involves trade-offs and there are trade-offs about the goals. This also deals with Arena Williams\u2019 point, which is that that\u2019s the whole point\u2014that you may, as a decision maker, decide that one goal or one part of national direction that gives effect to the goals is more important in some areas than others at a particular time, and it integrates into the Planning Bill, as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe point is to confront those trade-offs at planning level\u2014spatial planning and land-use planning level\u2014and have those debates and discussions as communities. At the moment, a lot of those difficult trade-offs between\u2014and there are trade-offs in all this stuff, right? I mean, we\u2019ve talked about it in question time, we talked about it in the Planning Bill; there are trade-offs on all these things. If there weren\u2019t trade-offs, we would just write a planning and environmental statute and we wouldn\u2019t have the air-quality issues and we wouldn\u2019t have nitrates in the water and all the rest of it. Everything would just be like \u201Ckumbaya\u201D and happy days. There are trade-offs. I think we can all agree on that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe point is not to avoid the trade-offs, because they exist. The point is, where in the system do you confront those trade-offs? The point of the system we\u2019ve designed, which is reflected in the goals and the national policy direction and the funnel architecture\u2014which is in this part of the bill, as well\u2014is to do it at the spatial planning level. It\u2019s just a statement of reality that you don\u2019t have to do all at the same place and at the same time. And as Arena Williams says, I mean, it may be, for example, that in some parts of the country the natural hazard risks are so vast that you say \u201CWell, you can\u2019t build here and you can\u2019t build infrastructure and you can\u2019t build housing\u201D and all the rest of it. That is not\u2014that is not\u2014achieving competitive land markets in that particular area, but it is prioritising the natural hazard goal. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo take the example from Steve Abel that maybe Lan Pham was keen on, it may be that there are real areas of significant indigenous biodiversity that are very special, or there may be a site of significance to M\u0101ori that is particularly significant to the local mana whenua\u2014an old p\u0101 site or a mahinga kai food-gathering site or an old battleground site, for example, where there\u2019s burial grounds and ancestrally important taonga. We might say, \u201CWell, nothing\u2019s going to happen there. That\u2019s protected.\u201D Well, that is giving effect to one of the M\u0101ori interests obligations, but it is also trading that off with development rights. That\u2019s the point. You know, trade-offs are everywhere in the planning system. Every day you see them, and members can think of their own examples. That\u2019s the point, is that you don\u2019t have to\u2014and if you boil it down to a granular level, clearly you can\u2019t\u2014achieve every goal all at the same time in the same place. So that\u2019s what it means.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022687d8218a2a23bbc423b51e9ea0da673\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s the time bit mean?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221a737e1bd04672e41433566bd450aa1f\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022beae87b3dbcf80a7a7bbc551e6411b02\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: What does the time bit mean? Like, are you meant to have\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022271890a2393062c2af25d132e520887b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Stand up when you\u2019re asking the Minister. I haven\u2019t granted you another question, but you should just\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b7410eb599b3067f3e43820c3b677c95\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: I can\u2019t believe I\u2019m saying this, but it\u2019s just, like, a question of temporal reality. Time goes by\u2014I mean, we\u2019re really sort of \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThrough the Looking-Glass\u003C/span\u003E in a nomenclature sense, but it\u2019s just a statement of fact.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002238677df1b382c46f670cfff7cb420dc9\u0022\u003ESteve Abel\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, is it possible to have a brief supplementary?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f54b4bff1b6b937d88f9e339362db189\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I promised the Hon Rachel Brooking one small question on the goals. We\u2019ve had comprehensive answers on clause 11. After this question, we\u2019re moving on to clause 12 and beyond.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022b2249db4092266e3606a97ea7ce70681\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b2249db4092266e3606a97ea7ce70681\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (16:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes\u2014oh, I\u2019m disappointed the Minister\u2019s leaving the chair, because I did want to ask him a question about trade-offs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c048ccc7437888854dd721defbfe7689\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s a temporal reality.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bf63534b0b9b762f71ff1ca37d296fe0\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: It is. Oh, I was hoping for the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c2ef46f9e104033b6301b588ffe40d83\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019ve got a very capable Parliamentary Under-Secretary here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220a371af0b1227eebc2488df6bd8621ee\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s nothing to do with the capability or not, it\u2019s to do with the particular focus on trade-offs\u2014and views on limits, where I think the two differ. I will go to my point about goals and save up my question for later. And that is\u2014I\u2019m interested in soil, Madam Chair, and I know that you are, too.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d5f6925409fb18b5d4c2ce764d0d1960\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m not in this debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251ceaebfac43d52de4a11024b8f75848\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: I know\u2014I know, but you can\u2019t help but be interested in soil, because it\u2019s so important. I think everybody here agrees on the importance of soil, and particularly related to the food production element, as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe have production of food in clause 11(1)(a) and we have life-supporting capacity of soil in (b). My question is a simple one, and that is: with the demise of the national direction on productive soils, where in the system does preserving productive soils fit? I\u2019m happy to be told that it\u2019s in the Planning Bill; of course, the two overlap a lot. But here, we have the soil goals\u2014two of them, if you take \u201Cproduction of food\u201D, which, to me, reads soil; and soil being specified in paragraph (b). So that is my question, as to where it sits. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other question that I would like to ask both the Minister and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is about trade-offs\u2014the Minister did quite a long contribution there. On trade-offs, I totally agree with the Minister that a whole lot of the resource management system is about trade-offs. However, if you\u2019re then saying we\u2019re going to introduce limits, isn\u2019t that something different to the trade-offs? That\u2019s a simple question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00223344c4c4da1b9bd75d2b50ee019e73d5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223344c4c4da1b9bd75d2b50ee019e73d5\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:07)\u003C/span\u003E: Just on the subject of soils, that\u2019s covered in goal (1)(a) in clause 11: \u201Cto enable the use and development of natural resources, including for the production of food and fibre\u201D. This concept of highly productive soils is currently covered by a national instrument under the Resource Management Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s quite clear that New Zealand does need to recognise and provide for growing, particularly for growing vegetables. There are some places in New Zealand which have incredibly good soils for growing, and so it\u2019s important\u2014as the Minister was describing\u2014in terms of the key instruments seeking to achieve this Act and seeking to achieve the following goals. Providing for growing on highly productive soils will surely be one of the matters that planners and decision makers turn their minds to as they look at their regions, particularly when it comes to spatial plans and regulatory plans\u2014identify places that are suitable for growing, are suitable for building houses, are suitable for building infrastructure, and, as Minister Bishop pointed out just a short while ago, where they are not suitable for certain activities or certain operations because of risks such as natural hazards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u002264a3ebe6e44e91b71276b447809e673e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002264a3ebe6e44e91b71276b447809e673e\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (16:08)\u003C/span\u003E: OK, thank you. Moving on, then, away from clause 11 and on to clause 12, I would direct the member in the chair to my Amendment Paper 745, which adds in a new paragraph (d) to subclause (3), which is a \u201Cmust\u201D\u2014so: \u201Cperson exercising or performing a power, function, or duty under this Act in relation to a matter [\u2026] (d) must consider the polluter pays principle\u201D. I\u2019m interested, of course, in the member in the chair\u2019s view on including the polluter pays principle, particularly as he is from a libertarian party; I would think this is something that he would support. If not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen moving on to new clause 12A, which is natural resource permits, my first question on this is where it comes from. This clause is all underlined in this Amendment Paper 710. I\u2019ve got two little questions on this. New clause 12A(1) starts with, \u201CA person exercising or performing a function, power, or duty under this Act who is deciding a matter relating to a natural resource permit must comply with section 12(3)(a) in accordance with this section.\u201D If you go back to clause 12(3)(a), that states that the person \u201Cmust consider the relevant provisions of the key instrument that directly affect the matter\u201D. OK. Why do you have to repeat that? Is it because it just relates to a permit?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut then it says, \u201CFor the purposes of section 12(3)(a),\u201D\u2014which is the one I just read out\u2014\u201Cthe person must first consider the provisions of the following key instruments\u201D. The member can tell me if I\u2019m right, but I presume the need for clause 12A is because it\u2019s specifically about, what I would call, consents, resource permits, and it\u2019s just trying to replicate what is in  clause 12. But then it says\u2014and this is the bit I don\u2019t quite follow\u2014at (3), it says, \u201CThis section applies despite section 12(3)(b).\u201D\u2014and 12(3)(b) is: \u201Cmust consider any relevant provisions of a higher order instrument,\u201D. It just reads to me that the new clause 12A is doing exactly what (3)(b) is saying, so why would you need 12A new subclause (3) saying \u201Cdespite section 12(3)(b)\u201D? I\u2019m just curious as to why has 12A been added and how is it different from 12 and why do we need to have a \u201Cdespite section 12(3)(b)\u201D, when it seems to be that 12(3)(b) is the whole thing that the Minister and the member in the chair keep saying about how you don\u2019t want to look up too high, you don\u2019t want to go back to a purpose statement; you just want to look to the instrument above you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002249cf4a63f0862076d9a1fe1bec9339e7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002249cf4a63f0862076d9a1fe1bec9339e7\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:12)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m pleased to answer the member\u2019s question about \u201Cpolluter pays\u201D. The Government agrees that polluters should pay, but there are enforcement provisions in the legislation, which, no doubt, we\u2019ll get to later on during this committee stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut, in response to the member\u2019s Amendment Paper, which requires that a person exercising or performing a power function duty under the bill must consider the \u201Cpolluter pays\u201D principle or the funnel, which is the concept by which we see the implementation of the legislation and its delivery on the ground sets out how key instruments must be implemented or considered when making decisions and when the goals can be considered directly, but is not intended to include discreet decision-making principles, like \u201Cpolluter pays\u201D and the funnel. The principles the Government intended to be considered in decision making are set out in clause 13. The \u201Cpolluter pays\u201D principle is not required to apply to all decision making, noting many decisions are not related to pollution. Clause 323A already sets out that the framework for the management of contaminated land will be based on the principle that those who produce the pollution or contaminate the land should bear the cost of management and prevention.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust coming to the member\u2019s question about clause 12(3)(b) and its relationship with new clause 12A. Clause 12(3)(b) talks to the fact that there are a number of higher order instruments, national policy direction, standards, and plans; and 12A, which is \u201CNatural resource permits\u201D directs \u201Cperson[s] exercising or performing a function, power, or duty\u201D and so forth. When considering a permit, they must \u201Cfirst consider \u2026 following key instruments to the extent that the provisions directly affect the matter: (a) the natural environment plan and any proposed natural environment plan; and (b) national standards\u201D, and so on. But it doesn\u2019t talk about national policy direction, and that\u2019s because, when considering the permit, what we intend is that many of the activities that are common, and where the effects are well understood and the way to manage those impacts on the environment on certain activities are well understood, they can be set out in standards which, essentially, provide for \u201CIf you comply with the standard, then the activity you\u2019re carrying out has known controls, then you comply.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo that\u2019s why \u201CNatural resource permits\u201D at 12A refers to standards but not national policy direction, which sits above the standard. So there is a reason why 12(3)(b) talks about higher order instruments, but 12A talks specifically about natural environment plans and national standards, because when we\u2019re looking up the funnel, we only want planners and decision makers and those performing the powers, functions, or duties to look up to the next most relevant instruments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u002254d643174857032c9a0c1d4d3e117783\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002254d643174857032c9a0c1d4d3e117783\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (16:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Just on this clause 12(3)(b) and looking up the funnel, my question is: why is that still a \u201Cdespite\u201D? I think it doesn\u2019t need to be a \u201Cdespite\u201D to this, because (b) is \u201Conly to the extent that, the matter is not addressed by the instrument listed beneath it;\u201D. Given what the member Simon Court was saying, you wouldn\u2019t need to look up anyway, and the whole point of (b) is it\u2019s telling you not to look up unless you really need to look up because it\u2019s not addressed, and he\u2019s just saying, \u201CWell, it\u2019s going to be addressed.\u201D So I don\u2019t know why you\u2019d have a \u201Cdespite (b)\u201D. That\u2019s the point that I was making because it seems to be doing exactly what he says.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAnyway, I\u2019ll move on, and that is to procedural principles\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ab387c2cf65bd3ad1247bd637a3a60a1\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003EOh!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222e72d7a3cc4dcd01c840a59c1f31f998\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014oh, although other people might have things to say about 12A.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022933a547ad7e293d6cb31884c2da041fb\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Move on with your question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223fa57e27b7b9786a39a5a1d418526ab5\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: But I\u2019ll move on to procedural principles. That is, in part, in answer to a question for the member in the chair. He agreed that the polluter should pay, but that clause 12 is about key instruments in decision making; it\u2019s the wrong place to have a \u201Cpolluter pays\u201D principle. I accept that. So, then, does he agree that it should be in clause 13? I think I heard him say something about how \u201Cpolluter pays\u201D won\u2019t apply to everything in this legislation, so you wouldn\u2019t have it as a procedural principle. I do think, then, I\u2019d be interested if there\u2019s somewhere else that you could put a \u201Cpolluter pays\u201D principle. However, I would also challenge him that everything in clause 13, \u201CProcedural principles\u201D will affect every single decision made under this legislation. So I think there is still an argument for putting the \u201Cpolluter pays\u201D principle in clause 13, despite his counter-argument is one thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThen, I want to now move to my Amendment Paper 698, and that is, to \u201CDelete clause 13(1)(e)\u201D, which is to \u201Cact in a pragmatic way that supports practical solutions:\u201D. Again, noting, of course, that we\u2019re on a separate piece of legislation than the Planning Bill, the phrase \u201Cpragmatic\u201D is very subjective and this is a regulatory regime that is being created here. I am concerned that by using novel language that is not often found in statute, if ever, that the Government is opening itself up to litigation and it could be easily avoided by deleting (e). I know that the member thinks that it\u2019s good to have timely, efficient, consistent, and cost-effective processes\u2014that is already provided for in (b). I think that the member would also want decision makers to act proportionately to the scale and significance of the matter to which the function, power, or duty relates. That is already included, and these are phrasings that are well understood. I\u2019m sure the member, as well, in the chair would like to ensure that all documents are succinct and use plain language that can be readily understood by the public. That is already included, and I think\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de82e97fe98ae37f6de994749423b896\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: So the question is about the word \u201Cpragmatic\u201D\u2014is that correct?\u2014and the Amendment Paper?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002205c3ab3399e166679a1c42300961876a\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. So (e) is \u201Cact in a pragmatic way that supports practical solutions:\u201D That came through from the Environment Committee and it could simply be deleted, because, if you delete it, then you are achieving (a), which is \u201Censure all documents are succinct and use plain language that can be readily understood by the public:\u201D. So I would ask for the member in the chair\u2019s consideration of my Amendment Paper 698 to delete 13(1)(e).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00224cd7385fa80af8978e5578b6d2eadc9c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224cd7385fa80af8978e5578b6d2eadc9c\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:19)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll just come back to the member the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s question around the use of the term \u201Cdespite\u201D. It\u2019s been clarified that that term is in there because, sometimes, national standards will apply without necessarily having a rule and a plan. The intention is that national standards that cover common activities, where the effects are commonly understood and can be managed in a consistent way, will not necessarily require rules and a plan. That is the reason for including the word \u201Cdespite\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve answered the question that the member raised about the \u201Cpolluter pays\u201D principle; I think I\u2019ve addressed that fulsomely in my previous answer. I do want to come to the member\u2019s question around the use of the term \u201Cpragmatic\u201D, in clause 13(1)(e). The member\u2019s contention is it\u2019s not a well-understood term. I can refer the member to the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Pragmatic means \u201Cdealing with the problems that exist in a specific situation in a reasonable and logical way instead of depending on ideas and theories\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022674115c07802c2859d953f130168c342\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s not an answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002230707fd955471c928878675d97a59ba4\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: It means to take a practical approach, as opposed to an idealistic approach to solving problems.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221acf450720a422f3e3f15df3bb185413\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Just to point out that when the member, or a Minister, answers a question, those asking the questions do not need to like the answer, and saying that\u2019s not an answer\u2014it was an answer; it might just not be an answer that the members like. Lan Pham.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u00226e9c5d5cf1bdcc37df3fef281ffa706c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226e9c5d5cf1bdcc37df3fef281ffa706c\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (16:21)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, thank you for that. I just want to pick up specifically on where the Minister was at, because I absolutely support my colleague Rachel Brooking\u2019s concern about clause 13(1)(e). With procedural principles generally, we heard that, yes, it is standard to have a set of procedural principles, and it makes sense to. What we also heard is that they\u2019re generally much shorter, and by lengthening them, and putting in subjective language, it will actually add complexity and potential for legal challenge, particularly in the council space. This is for any person performing functions, powers, or duties under this Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019m really interested to hear from the member particularly about that council aspect, because I think due consideration has to be given to this. The member will know that there are certain individuals that like to attach themselves to council processes, and sometimes their concerns and problems are absolutely valid; and then there\u2019s another kind, who are really out to tie up legal challenge and bureaucracy because they can: they have the money, the resources, but there isn\u2019t much validity. This long list of procedural principles, which we heard from a number of submitters, and also the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE), could be greatly tightened if they actually wanted to reduce this risk\u2014what is the member\u2019s response to that? I understand that he, in particular, is very allergic to unnecessary bureaucracy, and this seemed like a classic case of where it could be streamlined. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00229e4cc8fe96c3c626e8d46e84b7c1e961\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229e4cc8fe96c3c626e8d46e84b7c1e961\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:23)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. The member is absolutely right. In many cases, development applications or proposed activities and the way to manage effects on the environment could be readily accepted by a competent and capable decision maker, particularly in councils. Those decision makers are often very wary of making a decision, and then, faced with a litigious objector, they could find that decision being litigated through judicial review or other ways. That\u2019s something that Minister Bishop and I have identified as one of the reasons why the resource management system has congealed, has slowed down, is costing so much money. It costs New Zealand about $1.3 billion per annum just to consent infrastructure, and a large part of that is because decision makers feel that they have to be overly cautious in the way that they make decisions or potentially choose to notify an application, when, actually, the way to manage the effects of an activity are well understood.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EOne of the ways we want to change the culture that decision makers exist in, and the culture of the organisations that support them\u2014and we\u2019re talking about councils\u2014is to actually provide them with some defences against those type of\u2014I wouldn\u2019t call them vexatious, often they\u2019re genuine objectors, but where those objections or the matters they raise can actually be dealt with in a pragmatic and practical way. This clause 13 was actually proposed by the expert advisory group. These are resource management professionals, planning professionals, who have experienced this time and time again, where it was described to us that the council planners, while they might know that an applicant\u2019s proposed conditions would be eminently acceptable, are very wary of the risk of being challenged by objectors, and so they choose an overly cautious approach. We\u2019re clear: we want to help decision makers; we want to help councils; we want to provide them with defences when they make good decisions. If they can demonstrate they follow these procedural principles, we\u2019re confident that\u2019s going to help to not just speed up the system, but actually provide a lightening of the load these decision makers carry, and provide some positive framing for them when they make decisions, and give them some support when they defend their decisions against objectors. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229338d0127fbd8506d626ef93f36f311e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Rachel Brooking\u2014I\u2019m just keen to understand any tidy-ups from Subpart 1 before we move on to Subpart 2 shortly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022ff2eb5b3d9f775ef12f6f3d7afb0ca4a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ff2eb5b3d9f775ef12f6f3d7afb0ca4a\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (16:26)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, I\u2019ve got some on clause 15. On this issue of \u201Cpragmatic\u201D: the member in the chair has given a definition, and my only question to him is: does he agree with me that it is subjective? That\u2019s one question. The second question is: he just inferred that this wording in clause 13 had come from the expert group. Now, we are looking at Amendment Paper 701\u2014you can\u2019t see the track changes from the select committee report, but the select committee report is on the Table, and I\u2019ve just checked it, because it was my recollection that this came through the select committee process. It wasn\u2019t in the bill as introduced, and my contention is it is subjective.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnyway, going to clause 15, and I\u2019ve got an amendment on clause 15(1)(a) as well, which I will go to. Clause 15 is \u201CConsidering adverse effects of activities\u201D: \u201CA person \u2026 who is considering the effects of an activity\u2014(a) must consider how\u2014(i) adverse effects are to be avoided, minimised mitigated, or remedied\u201D, which is subparagraph (i). At subparagraph (ii), there\u2019s \u201Cadverse effects are to be offset or compensated\u201D. Now, in between these two subparagraphs, (i) and (ii), there is an \u201Cor\u201D. I would like the member in the chair to say why that\u2019s not an \u201Cand\u201D, because at the moment it could be that the consideration is just about offsetting, and not also \u201Cavoidance, mitigation, remedy\u201D. Why is there an \u201Cor\u201D there, and not an \u201Cand\u201D? That\u2019s at clause 15(1)(a), between subparagraphs (i) and (ii). \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt would be useful for the member in the chair to talk us through clause 15(1)(b), which is that they \u201Cmust not consider a less than minor adverse effect except where their cumulative effect results in a minor or more than minor adverse effect\u201D. \u201CMinor adverse effects\u201D: this is a common parlance of resource management. That\u2019s not an issue, but it\u2019s how you bring in the cumulative effect. How will you know that there might be a cumulative effect that would result in a more than minor adverse effect? How do you know that the \u201Cexcept\u201D applies? Clause 15(1)(b) says, don\u2019t consider minor adverse effects, except\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022efce2a75d927cbdc63837cd716e4deb1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: There\u2019s so much noise to our right, we can\u2019t hear the speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fa22000aa539a21ae035c949feb9ce8e\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, I\u2019m happy to start again!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e6f592a91cb91be0fe1fdf44a10e2000\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: No, we don\u2019t need you to start again, but we do need this side to be quiet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f83959e417a6e3f48f111ae45f30766\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: The question there is\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E] Oh my goodness!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002241c836414b51016e6283c49d9c067bf1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Or go outside!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022433233e596d7904fda6344f4c9f29da1\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: My question about the cumulative is: how do we know when the \u201Cexcept\u201D applies? How do we know that there won\u2019t be something cumulative going on? When will the \u201Cexcept\u201D apply? So, two questions here. One is: can the \u201Cor\u201D be an \u201Cand\u201D, and when does the \u201Cexcept\u201D apply? But I\u2019ll keep going. Clause 15(5) states, \u201CIn this section, a less than minor adverse effect means an adverse effect that is objectively acceptable and reasonable in the receiving environment with any change being slight or barely noticeable in the receiving environment.\u201D How does that definition relate to the cumulative effect, which results in a \u201Cminor or more than minor\u201D adverse effect?  A \u201Cminor\u201D or \u201Cmore than minor\u201D is different from a \u201Cless then minor adverse effect\u201D, which is defined.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo if the member can talk us through how this is going to work, and, in particular, in relation to those cumulative effects, because we know the cumulative effects are a major resource management difficulty. How you deal with them is a big headache for everybody who\u2019s ever been in this space, but it is nevertheless very important because it is the cumulative effects that can end up doing so much damage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen, I do also have an amendment on clause 15A, which is \u201CConsidering climate change effects\u201D before we move to Subpart 2, but I think I\u2019ll come back to that one because I\u2019ve got an Amendment Paper on it too. So my questions are about: is it subjective? Can we change the \u201Cor\u201D between subparagraphs (i) and (ii) to an \u201Cand\u201D? When does the exception in clause 15(1)(b) apply?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022a8513ab241fcb774ab622e20c6509697\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a8513ab241fcb774ab622e20c6509697\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:31)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. All good questions. The member did start off with a question around: is the definition of \u201Cpragmatic\u201D subjective? Look, I quoted a definition from \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThe Merriam-Webster Dictionary\u003C/span\u003E. There might be slight variations on that, but the point is we want decision makers to be supported, and when they find a solution that works, that manages environmental effects to acceptable level, that their decision can be defended.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen, I just want to clarify procedural principles. When I described it as being derived from the expert advisory group\u2019s advice, that was a concept that the expert advisory group proposed to Ministers. We sought advice from officials and it\u2019s been incorporated into the legislation. I understand there\u2019s been some changes since introduction. We\u2019ve added some additional detail around conditions and technology\u2014for example, using appropriate technology, including digital tools and systems, because we\u2019re absolutely focused that the new planning system and the new natural environment system are supported by data, by digital tools, and when users come to the system, that they can easily access information, they can get rapid responses, and that we can have a much better understanding about the environment that we\u2019re operating in, which will help when it comes to making decisions\u2014those difficult trade-offs that are sometimes necessary about where infrastructure goes or where activities go, and their impacts on the environment. So just clarifying procedural principles: the original concept came from the expert advisory group. It\u2019s been taken up by Ministers and developed as we\u2019ve gone through the legislative process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to come to Rachel Brooking\u2019s questions on clause 15, which is \u201CConsidering adverse effects of activities\u201D. In clause 15(1)(a), the member\u2019s question was: between subparagraph (i) and (ii), rather than \u201Cor\u201D, why didn\u2019t we use \u201Cand\u201D? Well, we want to be absolutely clear that there is no hierarchy in the way effects are managed in the new system. In an application for a development or activity, if an applicant proposes to avoid an effect or to remedy an effect after the fact, where that\u2019s acceptable, they can do so. But if they propose instead that the effects are better to be offset or compensated for, particularly offset in another location, then that should be considered on the same level, without prejudice, by decision makers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll give the member an example. There are many places around New Zealand where we want to carry out, say, extractive activities like a quarry, which involve long-term operations, extensive excavation, and modifying the site by moving large amounts of overburden soil, often stockpiling it for many years at a time, and then progressively extracting quarry rock, which is absolutely vital for construction and industry and roads. During that time frame, rather than carrying out, say, an extensive replanting exercise to achieve one of the other goals for example, it might be much more appropriate to identify somewhere where, by investing\u2014say, an indigenous biodiversity enhancement in another valley somewhere\u2014you can get much more impact from that investment, either through offsetting or compensating on another location, than having to manage all the effects on one site, which actually might be better. It might be much more efficient, and make a lot more sense just to do the quarrying here and to invest in indigenous biodiversity or in building constructed wetlands to replace natural assets that might be disrupted from a quarrying activity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo we want it to be absolutely clear that offset compensation and avoiding, remedying, or mitigating effects where practicable are all to be seen in the same basket of opportunities for applicants and decision makers. I\u2019m sure there\u2019s many members who will be able to think of places where they might have thought, \u201CWhy on earth are they planting zealandia along the side of the motorway when there is a valley up the road which could benefit much more greatly.\u201D\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eeaae785ddcb143127d65a4cc6fb4588\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The member\u2019s time has expired.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f9865563e36ab29e1f1e913a73fe511b\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226573bdd2c75b53aa0a406f27031a3ad2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Simon Court.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022710f097319bb7e4e806f7e59a818cf7d\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014where they could they could benefit much more greatly by investing in the planting of that restoration somewhere next to an existing forest park or next to somewhere that has already had some of that investment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI want to address the member Rachel Brooking\u2019s questions about cumulative effects. How would we know when cumulative effects in clause 15(1)(b) are to be considered? Well, I answered a similar question during the debate on the previous Planning Bill in this committee stage. The answer I gave was that when monitoring and enforcement data tells us that there may be an issue with communicative effects building up, and when planners and decision makers are looking at an activity, trying to decide whether that additional effect is going to potentially lead to an effect greater than is permitted, they will have monitoring and enforcement data. I\u2019ll give an example there. You look at councils that have issued consents from multiple small water-takes, lots of bores in the region. They have lots and lots of information about the impacts of all of those small water-takes cumulatively on groundwater, and potentially on the natural environment. So there are some examples that I\u2019ve given. Thank you, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022b9379a60a7b4f784928e705b93533d63\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b9379a60a7b4f784928e705b93533d63\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (16:37)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member in the chair, Simon Court, for his fulsome answer. That was a very useful answer, as well, to the questions around clause 11, too, and how places and times are meant to work together. I want to quickly take him through some questions about the procedural principles. The thrust of it is that there\u2019s no requirement here for the information that\u2019s thought to be the best available information. So I want to just test out some of what that means for the new system and in the context of the Natural Environment Bill. It\u2019s a bit different to the planning context where the information is standard form. We\u2019re now talking about environmental consents, which will rely on expert advice. I also want to flag that there are a couple of questions on clause 15A\u2014one from me, one from my colleague the Hon Julie Anne Genter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022efc03ca4d31cdfcbab671246f549d4bf\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I do remind the member that the previous person in the chair did give notice to move on to Subpart 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f646cd94d8367ba440b466272f6ae625\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, that\u2019s why I\u2019ll make it very, very quick.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e43ddc3618f7c67d7c39f220f83cbbb3\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Madam Chair. I just want to clarify that at that point, we hadn\u2019t even been on clauses 15 or 15A, and we haven\u2019t had any calls over here about both of those very significant sections. I just want to flag that for the chair\u2014there are very important things there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ac357c77dfbf4053544e629d8e4f7707\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m just reminding members of the previous advice given to the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224f9832c8d302151aa9072ff134a4b19e\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m just asking\u2014as quick as I can\u2014who bears the uncertainty of the requirement that it doesn\u2019t have to be the best available information? In the situation where you\u2019ve got environmental information and you know that the discharge is going to affect the aquifer and the effect on the aquifer is going to have a significant impact, over time, on a mahinga kai, but the council knows that it will cost $5,000 to get a report on that, is it available to them to know that it is an unknown but to move on?\u2014that\u2019s the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThen, about clause 15A, my question on this is that it\u2019s not an instrument here; it\u2019s a person. So if that person is proven to have considered, say, greenhouse gas emissions, that would seem to invalidate the decision. The problem here is that that\u2019s not written information, that\u2019s not a series of emails; that\u2019s what\u2019s in the head. Did we mean that in the formulation of a person? Because a person considering the effects of climate change is quite different to including it in an instrument.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022f898308f69042abf63f2964f2472933e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f898308f69042abf63f2964f2472933e\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:40)\u003C/span\u003E: If I could just quickly respond to member Arena Williams\u2019s questions around \u201CProcedural principles\u201D, clause 13(1)(d), \u201Csufficient and necessary\u201D means exactly what it says. There will be cases where, as the member raised the issue of the impacts of, say, a groundwater take on a nearby river where you have an active hydrogeological connection between the water take, the underground water, and the surface water, then, no doubt, a decision maker will need to be satisfied that they have sufficient and necessary information about the impact, say, of an increased water take or a new water take on the likely flows, and, therefore, the life-supporting capacity of the water. Hopefully that satisfies the member.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe member also had a question around clause 15A, \u201CConsidering climate change effects\u201D. What\u2019s the difference between a person exercising or performing a function, power, or a duty, or an instrument? Well, we\u2019re talking about considering adverse effects of activities, and unless the member\u2019s proposing that we outsource the whole thing to artificial intelligence, humans are still going to be involved in considering effects.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022 data-id=\u00224d4510973b9843751afd7d09c581ed42\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224d4510973b9843751afd7d09c581ed42\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green\u2014Rongotai) (16:41)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first contribution on this bill in the committee of the whole House stage, and I specifically wanted to speak to and ask questions about clause 15A. It\u2019s a follow-up to what the member in the chair has just replied to Arena Williams. What I\u2019m interested to know is, does clause 15A prevent any national guidance or policy instrument set by the Minister or the Government from explicitly seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? I know we\u2019re allowed to take in, according to this clause 15A, that it\u2019s possible to consider positive effects of an activity, and I\u2019m just wondering, could there be a national policy statement or other national standards on reducing emissions, or does that fall afoul of clause 15A(a)?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022a9d48b6be41eb29b3205041a6d9b9e79\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a9d48b6be41eb29b3205041a6d9b9e79\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:42)\u003C/span\u003E: Just for the member\u2019s clarification, in the new system, we\u2019re referring to national policy direction as opposed to national policy statements. We\u2019re not about making statements. This Government is about signalling clear intent and providing direction. That is what national policy direction means. The member\u2019s question was, could a subsidiary instrument to primary legislation essentially provide direction and create a standard for doing something that primary legislation doesn\u2019t provide for? No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022 data-id=\u002297b896c5898fa56ae957b4bac926d095\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002297b896c5898fa56ae957b4bac926d095\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green\u2014Rongotai) (16:43)\u003C/span\u003E: But it does say that they \u201Cmay consider any positive effects of activities that are associated with avoiding, reducing, removing, or displacing greenhouse gas emissions.\u201D Well, one, we did, at the Environment Committee, my colleague Lan Pham asked officials if there is anywhere else in the world that only looks at positive effects of reducing greenhouse gas emissions without taking into account negative effects of increasing them, and the answer was no. Maybe the member in the chair has some place they\u2019d like to refer to that does do this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIf I understand from what the member in the chair has said, it\u2019s impossible for Government to have national direction that provides for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Even though it would be taking into account the positive effects of reducing emissions, they couldn\u2019t do that without in some way also considering the adverse effects of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. If they\u2019re doing a planning standards or guidance or direction that\u2019s informing regional spatial plans, is it possible to only take into account one part of it and one side of the coin? And if not, does that prevent a future Government, under this legislation, from providing any sort of planning guidance that might lead to reduced emissions? Finally, I\u2019ll just speak to Amendment Paper 722, which would delete this clause. That\u2019s in the name of my colleague Lan Pham.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002235bd00f3c70b6edee4486a86d4bfcf91\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002235bd00f3c70b6edee4486a86d4bfcf91\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:44)\u003C/span\u003E: This jurisdiction has a number of legislative and regulatory tools to consider both positive effects of an activity associated with avoiding, reducing, removing, and displacing greenhouse gas emissions. That will be this legislation when it passes, we anticipate. We also already have legislation and regulations that manage adverse effects of climate emissions. That is the Climate Change Response Act and the emissions trading scheme (ETS), and the Minister and I have been very clear that we are seeking to remove scope overlap, and that\u2019s why this clause is clear.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI want to give the member some confidence that, in the Resource Management Act (RMA), it\u2019s been very, very difficult to be able to justify or get acceptance to, say, modify a natural water course in a way so that it becomes a wetland, or so that a wetland can be constructed and associated with a natural water course. It\u2019s very difficult to get consents to work in a water course. I have personal experience of that as a civil engineer trying to get consents, but in the new system, and if we look at the national policy direction (NDP), the illustrative NPD that we\u2019ve put out\u2014the non-statutory consultation\u2014it provides some guidance as to the role of constructed wetlands. Because if there\u2019s anything that can help take up carbon, it\u2019s building wetlands, and so I hope the member can take some heart that we are considering how we might mitigate our impacts from greenhouse gas emissions by building things such as wind farms and installing batteries around the network, but we\u2019re not intending to regulate or have councils consider the adverse effects of those emissions. In the planning and environmental management system, they\u2019re properly dealt with under the Climate Change Response Act and the ETS.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022a06d152e73583d0b9663d1e5e9f81d08\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a06d152e73583d0b9663d1e5e9f81d08\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (16:47)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one little, tiny question to the member\u2019s response then when he said that a great thing you can do for climate change is to build wetlands, How about not destroying them? That\u2019s my one question. Does he agree that that\u2019s useful to do as well?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnyway, moving on. Generally, on subpart 2, \u201CDuties and restrictions\u201D, and my first question is just a very general question to the member\u2014an easy question\u2014and a lot of this follows the same format as the Resource Management Act, and if he can confirm that to me, because as I read through it, it looks very familiar, and I probably, therefore, can\u2019t read it quite as correctly as other people would with fresh eyes. Anyway, I have a question. I\u2019m jumping along to clause 25, and this is the only one I have questions on at the moment, but I don\u2019t want to say that other members don\u2019t have questions on subpart 2. I just had the one question and that is about existing activities, and existing activities are allowed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I know that there will be changes to the time frames of permits, but in general, existing uses for things that come under the Natural Environment Bill are very different from existing uses for things that come out of the Planning Bill, and to think in terms of what district councils deal with as opposed to what regional councils deal with\u2014and this is the regional council bill\u2014but where you can get an existing use right for a house that is on a piece of land and it\u2019s not going to change, that is quite different from an existing use right for a water take, say, because water takes do not last forever. They last for up to 35 years under the Resource Management Act, whereas, for a land use consent, once you\u2019ve got it, you\u2019re done. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat is the difference with the types of consents with the new name now, \u201Cnatural resource permits\u201D, and existing activities. What I\u2019m interested in is, at clause 25(1)(a), this enables an existing activity to continue if a new rule comes in, and before that new rule comes in, the activity was permitted, or \u201Ccould have been lawfully carried out\u201D and \u201Cwas lawfully established;\u201D, and the effects are the same or similar, and \u201Cthe activity has not been discontinued for a continuous period.\u201D That is all similar language to what we find in the Resource Management Act, but I just want to know how long that certain existing activity can be allowed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENormally, you could say it could be allowed for 35 years, say, or until it\u2019s going to be reviewed by a review process or something like that, but at the moment it looks to me\u2014and I would be very happy to be corrected\u2014as though that there is not a temporal element to this. The question is: how long can someone continue with something that has been permitted but a new rule has come in to say that it\u2019s not permitted any more and that you need a natural resource permit? That\u2019s my question on Subpart 2. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00225398fd7f96b81b781d576c08665b426d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225398fd7f96b81b781d576c08665b426d\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:50)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve been advised that clause 25 is largely a carry-over from the Resource Management Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u00223aded28ecf497f278d2aefc59714b97e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223aded28ecf497f278d2aefc59714b97e\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (16:51)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask about clause 19. This is another clause which is similar in many ways to section 13 of the Resource Management Act (RMA), but it has a difference in that it doesn\u2019t have the second tier, but the RMA section did have it. The member in the chair will know that I\u2019m enthusiastic about wharves and I know that he knows a lot about wharves, and so I want to ask him about this. The difference in his new provision seems to be that the old protections of not being able to disturb the lake bed, say, when you are doing maintenance on your wharf now no longer apply, and so the first question to him is: is that a deliberate choice?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EReally, the question is an ideological one. Does someone who owns property that adjoins the lake have a bundle of property rights that now include being able to maintain their wharf? It is very contentious for some councils who have to manage that type of asset. At what point does maintaining your wharf, which is already existing, then become disturbing of the natural area and how is that going to be managed now that there\u2019s not the sort of second tier prohibition on disturbing the lake bed that there was under the old system? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is also a new formulation of it. Instead of that being prohibited under the old system, but a national environmental standard or a consent could expressly allow for it, it now goes for broke, but you must either be following the regulations or have a permit. What I really want to know with regard to those existing use rights, how do they port over, because we\u2019ve now got wharves that needed to be expressly consented and they have been, but the maintenance of them was not something that you needed to deal with, because if you were maintaining them and not creating an adverse effect on the environment around it, then you were in the clear. Now, this is a different system, where you need to follow the regulations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s a bit more interesting when you get to the question of those lakes which are not always surface water, and there is a temporal aspect to this, too. There are some lakes that have either been drained and now have significantly less under-water, and the effect of that is that an owner now has a bigger area which is their property under the new formulation, I think. But in the situation where you have any that was, say, farmland but that is not covered by water, does his new regulation apply, because under the old system you didn\u2019t need a new permit to create any structures on that. But under his new system, it actually seems more restrictive in that situation because now he\u2019s set out what kind of regulations will apply where surface water on a farm now creates a lake.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00220278499b9afe1b4efa696951c75f6af6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220278499b9afe1b4efa696951c75f6af6\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:54)\u003C/span\u003E: I just want to come back to an answer I gave to a question on clause 25, which I\u2019d said was largely carried over from the Resource Management Act. The member asked a question around how long an existing use might continue. That\u2019s in clause 25(1), and it is until that rule becomes operative, and then if a rule, for example, required that the activity that was previously permitted or was lawful required a consent, it could continue until that consent decision was arrived at.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll just come to the member\u2019s question on, was it on clause 18 or clause 19\u2014but let me answer them both. Let\u2019s cross them both off because the answer is the same. These activities would be provided for\u2014and the member mentioned a wharf and maintenance and various things\u2014in a national rule, or a rule and a plan. Any rule or proposed national plan has the legal effect of a water services standard on the basis that where effects are well understood and where the way those effects are managed means that they can be managed  to an acceptable level. If we can specify that in a water services standard and a national rule, or a rule and a plan, then it doesn\u2019t make sense to force people to apply for consents for things\u2014in the case of the Natural Environment Bill\u2014when the way to measure effects is already well understood and we can establish those at either a national or a regional level.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u00223c5d4eb2848e5703be712552885673d8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223c5d4eb2848e5703be712552885673d8\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (16:56)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m moving on to the next clause, clause 20, \u201CRestrictions relating to water\u201D. I have a few specific questions on this clause. My question is around clause 20(4), where a person is not prohibited from taking, using, damming, or diverting water any water, heat, or energy, provided if, in the case of fresh water, two aspects apply.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI have a specific question about the second aspect of that, being the prescribed level and what that means. Just for context, the test which it\u2019s talking about is that \u201Cif both of the following apply:\u201D, and the first one in subclause (4)(b)(i) is around \u201Cwater, heat, or energy\u201D and the \u201Cindividual\u2019s reasonable domestic needs\u201D or, potentially, stock water needs for animals, but the second part of it, in subparagraph (ii), is around \u201Cthe actual or likely adverse effects on natural resources of the taking or use are no more than minor or do not exceed any prescribed level;\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, that prescribed level is what I\u2019m really interested in understanding, because, as it makes it clear\u2014or I presume it\u2019s saying this. Further down, it talks about the prescribed level being able to be\u2014sorry, this is in subclause (5)(a). It means: \u201Cadverse effects that [may be] more than minor; [or] prescribed in national standards.\u201D Now, the concern with this is that we\u2019re seeing across the board throughout this bill environmental protections that would be standard that are actually, essentially, having their scope widened and widened and widened in different ways. I want to check: what are some examples of this prescribed level\u2014which I think is clear. Could you prescribe a level where effects are more than minor, what are some instances that are actually contemplated, and why is this allowance enabled? Thank you, Madam Chair. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022696d2f711169a1ae8140fb36e95d8ac0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022696d2f711169a1ae8140fb36e95d8ac0\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:58)\u003C/span\u003E: I don\u2019t have any tangible examples for the member right now, but at the moment consents are often required for activities\u2014as I\u2019ve pointed out in a number of my answers\u2014where the activity is well understood and the effects of that activity on the natural environment are well understood, and so the purpose of clause 20(5) is to be clear that where a level of adverse effects is not more than minor, then a person is not prohibited from these activities set out in subclause (4).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003E\u201CMore than minor\u201D is a threshold that has been chosen to reflect the level at which we wish to protect water. Further details will be able to be prescribed in national standards\u2014which, again, will be open for consultation\u2014after taking on feedback from stakeholders and making sure that any national standard that is arrived at and promulgated under this legislation will manage effects to an appropriate level.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022bdc4ab7177187384287357b133891d67\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bdc4ab7177187384287357b133891d67\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (16:59)\u003C/span\u003E: I want to move on to clause 21, \u201CDischarges\u201D. The thrust of the question is about the fact that the regime has ported over some of section 15 from the Resource Management Act, but it now makes the goal of M\u0101ori participation at the same level as the use or making of discharges.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is: if the discharge regime is working properly, is it possible that it will comply with the relevant numerical limit in the national rule but it still might contaminate \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Etuna\u003C/span\u003E [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003Eeel\u003C/span\u003E] or other traditional kai that mana whenua are trying to protect, to the point that they can no longer safely use them for kai, or that they will be dead and not there to be protected in the future? In clause 21, which is the provisions governing discharge permits, the consent authority is required to protect the continuing ability of mana whenua to gather and consume mahinga kai, rather than simply protect water against specified levels of contamination. That would be a more effective role in this regime, where there isn\u2019t a balancing of those goals, but that\u2019s not what is presented here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to ask this in this specific example. At other points in the legislation, the Te Arawa Lakes settlement is provided for, and that allows iwi to set regulatory levels alongside their local authority. But in the case of other iwi\u2014say, Ng\u0101i Tahu, which have a particular interest in \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Etuna\u003C/span\u003E [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003Eeel\u003C/span\u003E] in Lake Ellesmere, or other iwi who have particular interests that are recognised in statutory acknowledgments\u2014what is the power of a local authority to consider the discharge regime that\u2019s set up here alongside those procedural rights of M\u0101ori, which are only \u201Cto participate\u201D and not to actually have the right to continue to protect and use kai, alongside those of other users who would make discharges into water?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00223991cdcc685871acffa4e60b88dddd81\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223991cdcc685871acffa4e60b88dddd81\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (17:01)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member Arena Williams for the question. M\u0101ori interests are provided for in the goals. Treaty settlements are provided for in the legislation. Where those settlements have identified, say, places that are suitable for traditional mahinga kai gathering areas, if they\u2019re in a settlement, it\u2019s highly probable, if not certain, that those areas identified in a settlement will be matters that must be taken into account by plan makers. I think we can be confident about that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThere is also a provision for sites of significance to M\u0101ori to be identified in addition to what is in a Treaty settlement or in a statutory acknowledgment, so I think we can have a great deal of confidence that the concerns that the member has raised can be addressed through the provisions already in legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022a2fa584793ba61c62d32aa1aba1833de\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a2fa584793ba61c62d32aa1aba1833de\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (17:03)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to clarify\u2014and I think this is what the member said. In Lake Rotorua, if Te Arawa is guaranteed in their settlement that they have rights specifically designed to protect the customary gathering of those taonga species, and if the discharge is authorised under clause 21 and it meets the numerical requirements that are set, as he says, at the plan level, but those koura and those eels become unsafe to eat or, indeed, are gone in the future, is the regime working?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022a2ca707c08473d05e0fdb23ab5c27ef6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a2ca707c08473d05e0fdb23ab5c27ef6\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (17:03)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s envisaged that where, say, the provision Arena Williams has described in the Te Arawa settlement include places that are identified for mahinga kai, those should be provided for and the water quality in those areas protected so that those values which support mahinga kai can be achieved.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00222d76e8b7b258a6c843e291e8d884dc94\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222d76e8b7b258a6c843e291e8d884dc94\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (17:04)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m going to jump along now, but I do want to thank the member in the chair, Simon Court, for pointing out for me the word \u201Cuntil\u201D in clause 25 for me. I might be a little bit tired\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d3bdb3628219b43c20e047412d221725\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I don\u2019t know why!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a2f5fdb0d8cdbca7b3f7d58280dbb41a\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014but it\u2019s helpful. Classification of activities is at clause 32, and I have Amendment Paper 706 for a permitted activity and this is to change the \u201Cor\u201D to an \u201Cand\u201D. That is that something can be a permitted activity, or a decision maker should consider classifying an activity as a permitted activity, if \u201C(i) the activity is acceptable, is anticipated, or achieves the desired level of use, development, or protection;\u201D\u2014and this is the change\u2014\u201Cand (ii) the adverse effects of the activity are understood and can be managed:\u201D. I would like the member in the chair to consider this amendment, please.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u0022342dbb4cbbc59ab9c734b885f07f173d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022342dbb4cbbc59ab9c734b885f07f173d\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (17:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to pick up specifically on clause 32, where my colleague Rachel Brooking was. This is a really significant part of the bill, in terms of a change which has huge implications. That\u2019s particularly around permitted activities. I really would like to understand from the member in the chair, Simon Court, because we did have quite significant changes to this clause as part of the select committee process, and it was really disappointing to see where the committee actually got to on this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI particularly want to understand the permitted activity thresholds, and the first one is in clause 32(2)(a), which classifies where a decision maker should actually consider these permitted activities. The first is whether the activity is acceptable, anticipated, or achieves the desired level of use, development, or protection. I think that\u2019s pretty uncontroversial. The part that I\u2019m really interested in is the second part, which is the aspect where the adverse activity, or, sorry, the adverse effects of the activity\u2014it\u2019s been a long day\u2014are understood and can be managed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, as to the words \u201Ccan be managed\u201D, I\u2019m interested to hear from the member and his officials: is that specifically about them possibly being managed, or is it that to qualify as a permitted activity, they are being managed or they must be managed? This is really significant when it comes to so much more of our consenting framework under these bills being permitted. I think it\u2019s a really important aspect that I\u2019d like to clarify.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other aspect which I\u2019d really like to hear the member\u2019s comments on is this. When the bills were first introduced, there was another aspect to the permitted activity rules, and that was one where it was \u201Cwhere there is sufficient allocation for any anticipated cumulative effect without breaching an environmental limit\u201D. This was absolutely key to permitted activities not being entirely opened up to cumulative effects that do breach and impact environmental limits. If you want to summarise one massive problem and issue that is yet to be adequately addressed, it is that one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen we had submissions, Federated Farmers, in particular, singled in on this, saying that they wanted this gone, and it disappeared. I would like to hear from the member why, when there is such change in the system, why was this bottom line around actually ensuring that we don\u2019t fall into the same mess that we have been in for the last few decades\u2014why did this have to be removed? Thank you. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022f5e876444ceb113644e002fb48b418e4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f5e876444ceb113644e002fb48b418e4\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (17:09)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Clause 32 is around guidance for classifying activities. Just to answer Rachel Brooking\u2019s question, I think it was, about why it says \u201Cor\u201D when considering whether a classifying activity is permitted, it\u2019s to retain flexibility, and so we won\u2019t be accepting the member\u2019s proposed amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EComing the member Lan Pham\u2019s question about a decision maker considering classifying an activity as a permitted activity, there are many activities that are common and well understood, where the impacts can be anticipated and are accepted, and the activity achieves the desired level of use, development, or protection. We might look at gravel extraction from rivers. There are many members of this House who have spoken around the challenges of extracting gravel from rivers. This isn\u2019t gravel that\u2019s always been there. If you drive up over the Remutakas, north of Wellington, and you drive down the other side into the Wairarapa, you will see multiple channels, enormous gullies, on each side of the Tararuas, which generate a constant discharge of rock on to the plains below. Because we\u2019ve built cities and roads and we\u2019ve developed the land and we now live, mostly, healthy\u2014most of us\u2014and, for some of us, wealthy lives, we have to accept that if we\u2019re going to let the mountains fill the rivers full of gravel, we\u2019re going to have to get some of that out, or it\u2019s going to cause the bridges to be washed out, it\u2019s going to cause towns to be flooded, it\u2019s going to end up spilling after flood and storm events all over productive farmland and wrecking the productive farmland.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, it may well be\u2014and I\u2019m not foreshadowing what the national standard could look like\u2014that we can develop a permitted activity criteria when classifying activities, that removing gravel from a river is acceptable as a permitted activity on the basis that if we look at 32(2)(a)(ii), \u201Cthe adverse effects of the activity are understood and can be managed:\u201D. What this Government intends to do is to reduce the number of activities that require consents where the effects of those activities are well understood and can be managed at an acceptable level. The questions the member has asked, and my responses in reply, sum up the problem that we\u2019re trying to solve and the clarity we\u2019re trying to provide.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022 data-id=\u0022ab015ad95f96ce95c032fb7e30880a37\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ab015ad95f96ce95c032fb7e30880a37\u0022\u003EHon JO LUXTON (Labour) (17:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the member Simon Court for his very fulsome answers; they are very helpful to us on this side of the Chamber to understand his reasoning for pieces of this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI would like to just go to clause 21, \u201CDischarges\u201D. My interest is around biosecurity responses. I\u2019m interested to know where\u2014I assume this would be the part in this legislation that would cover this\u2014if not in here, in this piece of legislation provides for flexibility for biosecurity responses that might involve chemical treatments if we have an emergency biosecurity response where we need to, for some reason, discharge a chemical into whether it be the air, land, whatever, sea\u2014where in this legislation allows the flexibility for that to happen?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022fb7e23e72e692de9a8d65c7403e2000f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fb7e23e72e692de9a8d65c7403e2000f\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (17:13)\u003C/span\u003E: In response to the member the Hon Jo Luxton\u2019s question, in terms of discharges, we have covered that at clause 21, which, basically, says that \u201CA person must not discharge any of the following unless the discharge is expressly allowed by an instrument specified in \u2026 a natural resource permit:\u201D. I urge the member to refer to clause 21, which provides quite a high level of detail about the process around that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022 data-id=\u00226e6c7fc4adf5d237df18e0dab152a259\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226e6c7fc4adf5d237df18e0dab152a259\u0022\u003EHon JO LUXTON (Labour) (17:14)\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, I just have a follow-up question. I\u2019m sorry, the member Simon Court may not have heard my question in full because I think he was speaking at the time, but my question is: with regard to when you have an emergency biosecurity response, where in this legislation provides the flexibility to allow an emergency biosecurity response that might require involving chemical treatments, and whether they can be discharged? Whereabouts in this legislation might provide flexibility for that to happen?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022fc394bc0e9c9dc5ef4efef869fef59ba\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fc394bc0e9c9dc5ef4efef869fef59ba\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (17:14)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve been advised that provision for that is in clauses 301 to 304, or thereabouts. If the member the Hon Jo Luxton wants to come back and further questions about that, I\u2019m happy to answer them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220c803ef6f9d5002590443e1b321c54db\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Or we could move straight to that now!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022 data-id=\u00225ba33fe6503f578c91770d20470e9eca\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225ba33fe6503f578c91770d20470e9eca\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green\u2014Rongotai) (17:14)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I had a question about the Amendment Paper 710. In Part 2, Subpart 3, clause 29 is deleted. Clause 29 had definitions of \u201CObjectives, policies, rules, and methods\u201D. Now, the definition of \u201Crule\u201D or meaning of \u201Crule\u201D has moved to clause 31. It seems like there\u2019s no clause 29 now; it just goes 28, 30. \u201CObjective\u201D is not defined in the definitions, in this particular use it means. \u201CPolicy\u201D and \u201Cmethod\u201D were in the definitions but have been deleted, but clause 30 still refers to \u201CApplication of objectives, policies, rules, and methods\u201D. I was just wondering if the member in the chair, Simon Court, could help us understand these drafting decisions, and if this specific meaning of \u201Cobjectives\u201D, \u201Cpolicies\u201D, and \u201Cmethods\u201D is elsewhere in the new Amendment Paper. I can\u2019t find it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002257ada0d5754b36f786b110bfce9ee623\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002257ada0d5754b36f786b110bfce9ee623\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (17:16)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, I\u2019m happy to respond. Look, that clause was deleted. It sets out what an \u201Cobjective\u201D, \u201Cpolicy\u201D, \u201Cmethod\u201D, and \u201Crule\u201D is. It was deleted because it was considered unnecessary and added complexity at the stage of the legislation. It can be redirected through national standards or non-statutory guidance, if such matters are still required.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00224d41da68f049d743b1216515e587082d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224d41da68f049d743b1216515e587082d\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (17:16)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. On this point, I\u2019ll just take us through it for a wee second. Clause 37, \u201CRules relating to restricted discretionary activities\u201D\u201437 in the report back from the Environment Committee is struck out, OK? Then, we get to what we\u2019ve been going through, which is Amendment Paper 710. In 710, we\u2019ve got clause 36 followed by clause 39, so there is no 37 or 38. But then we have this tiny little Amendment Paper that I did a point of order on earlier, which was at 2.11 p.m. today, 27 August 2026, and it says, \u201CDelete clause 37\u201D. So that is why we\u2019re confused. There\u2019s something here about\u2014it says, \u201CThis proposes to delete the rest of clause 37 of the Natural Environment Bill. The substantive clause in 37(1) and (2) was struck out in the bill that was reported back in the Environment Committee.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002280d176627141b412f0dbea43bf1e8f20\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: But there\u2019s no rest of the clause.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002225010eb503e61277f06f0ac8a844cd30\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, it\u2019s all struck out, yeah. So that\u2019s the question. Just what are we doing?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00222dcd16cc699dab531387cf52e6b84981\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222dcd16cc699dab531387cf52e6b84981\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (17:18)\u003C/span\u003E: The member the Hon Rachel Brooking raises a valid point. I understand that the Minister Chris Bishop, in his time in the chair, explained that\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eb4faf3ed1f123eb3bdcfebe1af854cc\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: No, he didn\u2019t.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002234405e6b111ca815cd4060baf4e839bf\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: Well, in that case, I shall take the opportunity to explain that when the bill was reported back, it had a number 37 and, what I understand, what officials have explained to me is that in preparing this legislation for tabling, the number was removed but the clauses haven\u2019t been removed\u2014but the number has been removed; there was no content associated with it. OK? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00224cb6c94631e12951bf13a0daeda1a30d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224cb6c94631e12951bf13a0daeda1a30d\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (17:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Got it. Thank you, Madam Chair. So it\u2019s not really \u201Cdelete clause 37\u201D; it\u2019s delete the number 37. That\u2019s my great drafting coming through!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOK. I\u2019m going to move to clause 39, and that is\u2014which would have come after 37 and 38, but that\u2019s also disappeared\u2014yeah, what\u2019s happened to 38? Clause 38 was not in it as reported back, either. Maybe there\u2019s never been a 38. Who knows? I know, of course, the numbers will be corrected before we get to third reading, so I\u2019m not being rude about the numbers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut new clause 39 is \u201CPermitted activity rules that require registration\u201D, and this \u201Crequiring registration\u201D is all in track, and there are some changes. So just if the member in the chair, Simon Court, can explain what\u2019s happening here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022a024110a7bca4593617dd62580244aee\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a024110a7bca4593617dd62580244aee\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (17:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you for the question. Permitted activities require registration in the Amendment Paper 709\u2014that was redrafted to better reflect policy intent, to clarify that the scope of permitted activity rules and other requirements where a permitted activity requires registration, such as where an applicant needs to pay a fee or provide a certificate, a qualified person in order to demonstrate that they qualify for that status.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022627bdfeefedc4a8060ccf63a06a9b5d1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022627bdfeefedc4a8060ccf63a06a9b5d1\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (17:20)\u003C/span\u003E: I think the answer to that was it was more of a redrafting than anything else. I\u2019m getting a nod. Thank you for that. I think now it would be sensible for us to move on to Subpart 4, and that is environmental limits. It\u2019s an important part of the bill in the whole scheme of things, because as we\u2019ve heard, this is where Minister Bishop has been saying\u2014and he said in question time today\u2014that there\u2019s a big difference from the Resource Management Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EOn that, my first question would be does the member in the chair, Simon Court, agree with the Minister that the Resource Management Act has not set any environmental limits, and, if so, does that then mean that he thinks that the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management (NPSFM) doesn\u2019t contain environmental limits? If he thinks that, in fact, the freshwater national policy statement does contain limits, will he agree with my Amendment Paper 699 to establish what is found in the NPSFM as the freshwater limits so that we can get off with a roar and a hiss and have the freshwater limits described in some form early on in the process, and, if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002244d68fdd39a78accc465b6b0d2706316\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002244d68fdd39a78accc465b6b0d2706316\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (17:22)\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019re not here to debate the Resource Management Act; we\u2019re here to debate the Natural Environment Bill. I just want to make it clear that the Resource Management Act is not required to have limits; this legislation is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00222090b0236c633be9c7f42600492e5f03\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222090b0236c633be9c7f42600492e5f03\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (17:22)\u003C/span\u003E: That didn\u2019t answer my question. The point is, if he can agree with me that there are limits in the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management, then my question is: why not include them in this bill so they\u2019re ready to go? That was the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022970347e091bbe9a32fdbbf23e3eedbc1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022970347e091bbe9a32fdbbf23e3eedbc1\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (17:22)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you for that focused question on the Natural Environment Bill. Environmental limits are in the new system. The methodology for their purpose and the methodology for setting them out is found in Subpart 4. There is a distinct and important process for establishing limits for both human health and ecosystem health, which does not exist in the Resource Management Act. It\u2019s important that as we go through the process of developing national policy direction, national standards that will describe a standardised approach for setting limits\u2014one of the matters that we\u2019re proposing is included as a standard in the new system\u2014that that substantive work on secondary legislation, regulations, and instruments be allowed to happen so that we get the limits right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022c3c456dc09b3b32594b0f25a96f19d28\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c3c456dc09b3b32594b0f25a96f19d28\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (17:23)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick burning question before I also move on to environmental limits at clause 40 and 41 on page 63. The thrust of the question for the member in the chair, Simon Court, is that this is a deceptively important provision which sets out how regional councils, councils need to respond to national rules, and it gives us something of a hierarchy there. The question is: can a local council respond to local environmental conditions when there is a national rule in place? How is it possible for, say, the Waikato Council to respond to its badly degraded river catchment in future when there is a national rule and, indeed, a rule in primary legislation around setting a national rule for all of those other councils that want to create higher standards of protection, and that would have some impact on, say, freshwater discharges? Are they still empowered to be able to do that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002257019fa2f5cd74fa3156095f11847064\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002257019fa2f5cd74fa3156095f11847064\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (17:24)\u003C/span\u003E: In the case of the Waikato, Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato will prevail, but in relationship to other catchments, clause 41(3) is quite clear: \u201CIf a national rule allows an activity and states that a \u2026 permit is not required \u2026 or states that an activity is a permitted activity, the following provisions apply:\u201D Basically, it sets out that if a plan states that an activity is permitted on the conditions specified in the plan, the conditions can only deal with the effects that are additional to or separate from the effects managed by a national rule. That\u2019s because we don\u2019t want, in the new system, to see councils making rules for matters which have already been covered by a national standard. That is intentional. We want to simplify the system and we want all system participants, whether they be councils, decision makers, planners, applicants, resource users, people working on the land, growing stuff so they can feed New Zealand. We want them, if at all possible and if it\u2019s practical, we want to have national rules that say how effects can be managed to an acceptable level. That is the reason that we have provided for that. Again, that\u2019s clear in (c): \u201Cif a plan\u2019s conditions deal with effects of the activity that are the same as [the national rule] \u2026 the national rule prevail[s].\u201D We want to avoid duplication, double-ups, councils making rules for stuff that at a national level we have already agreed how effects can be managed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u002289d17e1025393ef5538e72a1882294a4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002289d17e1025393ef5538e72a1882294a4\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (17:26)\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. I want to go to clause 48B. This is new from the Amendment Paper 710. It\u2019s \u201CConsiderations for anticipated breach of environmental limit\u201D. It says, \u201C For the purposes of this subpart, a decision maker may consider that a breach of an environmental limit is anticipated\u201D\u2014so it\u2019s an anticipated breach\u2014\u201Conly if satisfied that the breach\u201D\u2014so it sounds good; if you\u2019re worried about there being too many breeches, it\u2019s limited\u2014\u201C(a) is likely to be caused by a historic activity, an activity authorised by a natural resource permit, or both; and (b) is highly likely to occur; and (c) cannot be prevented by taking reasonable steps.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ENow, there\u2019s a lot in this clause and I would like to invite the member Simon Court to start us off on it in terms of why it has been included here and what \u201Ca historic activity\u201D is and if the historic activity can also be a continued activity. That\u2019s the first question there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00228d7c674f193c9979a7416ea8c3be242b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228d7c674f193c9979a7416ea8c3be242b\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (ACT) (17:28)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll attempt to deal with that now. I might need to take further advice on that. Clause 48B defines an anticipated breach as one which is locked in by past activities\u2014historic activity or activities authorised by a natural resource permit. It\u2019s highly likely to occur. That\u2019s why we use the word \u201Canticipated\u201D. We anticipate it will occur. And it can\u2019t be prevented by taking reasonable steps. To the member the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s question: will that activity still be allowed to occur? There are provisions for activities to occur on the basis that there is an overall trend towards environmental improvement, but, again, there are other provisions in the Act where the system needs to respond to an anticipated breach by taking action. I\u2019m sure we\u2019ll get into that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u00224f58a9d0c8080a73d8b09441170bd6dd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224f58a9d0c8080a73d8b09441170bd6dd\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (17:29)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. My first question on environmental limits is about clause 45, definitions of \u201Cbest attainable information\u201D. It also relates to clause 57B, so I\u2019ll deal with those together. Clause 57B is on page 77. The question that this is trying to solve is: how much information does an environmental decision maker need before making a decision? But the usual standard in the Natural Environment Bill is not the best obtainable information or the best available information at the time; it\u2019s just enough information in the procedural principles, and the regulations also repeat that definition. We\u2019ve got this problem here\u2014I think that arose at clause 13(d)\u2014where councils and decision makers could move on if they anticipated that in future there might be some information that they didn\u2019t know and that there was an unknown, and yet that known unknown would mean that they could move on and not seek that information. But here, with the environmental limits, the standard is much broader. I want to ask the member in the chair, first: is that the appropriate standard when then setting the limits become challengeable?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHe made a very impassioned case for why the expert panel had suggested to him that these procedural rules should be set out in the primary legislation, and I agree with him that we should make it simpler for environmental decision makers to make decisions and not have to defend the procedure which they used. The availability of information is one of those procedural points, but here they\u2019re held to a much higher standard than the one that was required under the Resource Management Act, and a much, much higher standard than the one that\u2019s required in any other process in his bill. \u201CBest obtainable information\u201D means information which you could have gathered from any source that exists up until that point that you are requiring that. Even though he suggested to the committee earlier that the systems are much improving, the central government is making a big investment in the information that will be available, still \u201Cbest information\u201D then makes it contestable and makes it reviewable if the decision maker has not got some part of the information which someone challenging the decision has access to and didn\u2019t take that into consideration.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo it would just be useful, I guess, if he would take the committee through why he\u2019s used this much, much higher standard than the other information standards in the rest of the bill. Thank you. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00222e17688f46b46b92b0d369c6466c73e0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222e17688f46b46b92b0d369c6466c73e0\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (17:31)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. That was a great question. Look, the definition of \u201Cbest obtainable information\u201D is right here in 57B(2). The member asked, is this a much higher standard or do I consider it a much higher standard? Look, it\u2019s the appropriate criteria for decisions in this context. Best available information means \u201Cinformation [decision-makers are] satisfied is as robust, transparent, and accessible as reasonably possible; obtained from information that is available or can be reasonably\u2014reasonably\u2014obtained at the time; and is obtained in a manner that is proportionate to the effects of the decision.\u201D Because we do not want to carry over the behaviours and culture of the Resource Management Act, where decision makers are confronted with the risks, say, of judicial review or objections that come out of left field because they\u2019re accused of not having had the information to make the decision properly. That, if the risk can be managed in an appropriate way, and they have the best obtainable information, here is a defence for them when they make their decision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u0022134ff3ab1ff01cbe8bd847053a0910e8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022134ff3ab1ff01cbe8bd847053a0910e8\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (17:32)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Really pleased to be able to talk to this section on environmental limits because this truly is what should be the heart of a functional resource management system. We heard very clearly from submitters across the board that they were really concerned about the entirety of the environmental limits section being insufficiently protective. This is really important and should be really important to the Government, who keeps insisting that these bills are not going to take us backwards when it comes to environmental protections.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo the aspects that I want to get to is, firstly, around the expression of environmental limits themselves\u2014this is at clause 48. I have an Amendment Paper on this, which is about\u2014because it makes it clear in the bills that these are states and attributes that can be expressed numerically or in narrative form. Now, what I\u2019m really interested in is whether the Minister would consider a very minor amendment to open that up to environmental limits being able to be expressed spatially. Why that\u2019s really important is because we want to get somewhere with this new system. And what is often the case is that because limits are often in tables in the back of, like, 800-page documents and what not, they\u2019re completely inaccessible to the public.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, what is really important, and what I\u2019d love to hear the Minister\u2019s responses to, is if they are enabled to be expressed spatially, this could really open up people\u2019s accessibility in understanding of\u2014for example, where you had a critical source area or where you had a drinking water protection zone, people would be able to see spatially how that area around that specific point where the measurement is taken, is directly related. I think just allowing that kind of scope could help this really be something that is not just buried away in a table or what not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other aspect that I would like to understand is about the defined terms in environmental limits, because\u2014and this relates to some other Amendment Papers that I have\u2014I\u2019m interested as to whether the definition of ecosystem includes air or atmosphere, because it talks about biological life\u2014and I\u2019m not going to repeat all the words that it says with that. It talks about physical and chemical habitat and it talks about ecological processes. What I\u2019m really keen to understand with that is whether our atmosphere or our biosphere or however you want to describe it, but that tiny, tiny part of our Earth, that allows us to live and have a functional air that we breathe and ideally a climate that offers us a livable future; I want to understand whether human health limits or ecosystem health limits can be set for our atmosphere or biosphere, because I think, increasingly, we are seeing not only the impacts of climate change, but an increasing awareness of how vulnerable and precious and how protective we should actually be being about this very specific part of the world that enables literally everything else. So I\u2019m really interested.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022ed7128f7367f32478acaa1db80a55c44\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ed7128f7367f32478acaa1db80a55c44\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (17:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Look, I do appreciate the member\u2019s interest in setting ecological and human health limits and would take the definition of ecosystem as read under clause 45, \u201C Defined terms\u201D. The member\u2019s question: can limits be set for air quality or air? Yes, we have existing limits, say, for particulate or for different emissions to air. We already have standards for those things under the Resource Management Act. We want to make sure that we have appropriate limits in the new system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EFor the biosphere, as a concept, where limits are provided for ecological health. The matters that limits can be set for are set out in legislation\u2014and just to be clear, for human health, it\u2019s freshwater, coastal water, land, soil, and air; for ecosystem health, it\u2019s freshwater, coastal water, land and soil, and indigenous biodiversity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cf9f0e2d9f487bfcdc790d71e9cb8a68\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002288936bbb15c3234874275bba16a65ac8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Is this a follow up question?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u00229444a8dae1d540d848fcf87d3a723b63\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229444a8dae1d540d848fcf87d3a723b63\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (17:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, it is. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to round that out\u2014thank you to the member for clarifying for air; completely aware of that\u2014specifically, I\u2019m interested in atmosphere. This is the subject of two of my amendments. I don\u2019t believe they have numbers, but they were tabled at 11.53 on Wednesday. They are both proposing to change clause 50 and insert \u201Catmosphere\u201D into \u201CWhere ecosystem health limits must be set\u201D, and the same when it comes to human health limits in clause 50A(3)\u2014so both of those aspects. The reason why I, specifically, am interested in atmosphere as opposed to air is because of that protective layer, and because it is so necessary to everything else that happens on the planet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022ae4daf367d2193f3c1fa6afb379328f1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ae4daf367d2193f3c1fa6afb379328f1\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (17:39)\u003C/span\u003E: I can provide further explanation to the member. Is atmosphere in scope of the Natural Environment Bill? Partly. Air is defined as to be part of the atmosphere. We live in the troposphere part of the atmosphere, where the air is, that we can breathe; but it does not include in the Natural Environment Bill, the outer atmosphere. So limits can only cover this aspect, the troposphere.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWhile effects on the atmosphere are technically in scope, as they are under the Resource Management Act, there needs to be evidence of an effect which substantially limits the circumstances under which that could be considered. Again, I note that the adverse climate change effects from greenhouse gases are specifically excluded from being considered in this legislation, because they are already dealt with under the Climate Change Response Act and covered by emissions pricing under the emissions trading scheme.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022887302a65ee4ad857785c3955d71e167\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022887302a65ee4ad857785c3955d71e167\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (17:40)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. This is truly a very significant piece of reform, and I congratulate the member in the chair, Simon Court, and also share his enthusiasm to introduce these limits. That\u2019s why this new part of the legislation\u2014the definitions\u2014is so important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019m at page 67, at the bottom of Amendment Paper 710, for \u201Cecosystem\u201D. There are two things that this is missing, and I\u2019m making a pitch to the member in the chair, for you to include them. Firstly, to paragraph (a), \u201Cbiological life\u201D, the test here is \u201CAre there eels in Lake Ellesmere?\u201D, not \u201CAre there eels in Lake Ellesmere which are edible?\u201D The goals now have changed. There are M\u0101ori interests at the same level\u2014I\u2019m at clause 45, page 67\u2014and so\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eed44af5c0c735525fc0e11c12095109\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Can I just check which clause you\u2019re speaking to?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e5134746dfa445c6710beba357050452\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS\u003C/span\u003E: Clause 45, page 67.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225c8208245b5c8bd86b37f55308814186\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m kind of reluctant to keep heading backwards. We did say that at the beginning.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f105c56980d54fd5ac51e655bd92263c\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS\u003C/span\u003E: I will make it very brief. So that\u2019s the first thing that seems to be missing here. Does the member in chair have any interest in including that here, because it\u2019s not included in a goals hierarchy any more?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAnd, at paragraph (c), it doesn\u2019t say \u201Cecological balance\u201D; it just says \u201Cecological processes\u201D. His definition at paragraph (c) seems to have an unintended consequence here. Taking the example of Lake Forsyth at the moment, which has a local r\u0101hui because of the algal bloom in the area, that is also a biological process and there is biological life in the lake\u2014abundant biological life in the lake. It doesn\u2019t mean that the lake is healthy, but his definition of ecosystem includes a definition which is overrun with algal bloom and thus killing the other life forms in the lake. Why doesn\u2019t his definition have a sense of balance and sustainability in there too?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002259b78c6385dd215eca2919ba184ae61f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002259b78c6385dd215eca2919ba184ae61f\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (17:42)\u003C/span\u003E: Algae are important\u2014they are one of the original creatures that lived on Earth\u2014but algae in the wrong place, and too many of them, is bad.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002252283fcdfc359df3f272df8a9bd6af8b\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: So say that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e554d4dc3cc0a41ce24cd879c826b540\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: We do not want to be so specific in the legislation about which algae are good and which algae are bad, but we certainly have provided for a definition of \u201Cecosystem\u201D, including biological life, which includes microbes, invertebrates, plants, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, and fungi. The member\u2019s question was whether we should include eels specifically. I understand that eels are amphibians.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019m going to grant the member some slack, because I don\u2019t usually take heckled questions, but I would eat pretty much any of that stuff. I don\u2019t think defining them as \u201Cedible\u201D or \u201Cnot edible\u201D is helpful. They\u2019re all edible. So if we could just move on from definitions to the member\u2019s next question about a subsequent part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00226ba3afcee91bb49013a145012b2e33ba\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226ba3afcee91bb49013a145012b2e33ba\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (17:43)\u003C/span\u003E: A question from me. I am intrigued by what the member in the chair, Simon Court, counts as food, and I won\u2019t think about it any more!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI made a contribution earlier about clause 50 and my Amendment Paper 699, making the freshwater limits those that already exist in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM), and the member in the chair said something about how he doesn\u2019t want to go back to the Resource Management Act (RMA) and he wants to go through the processes that we\u2019re going to be talking about for the setting of the limits. As we are nearing the dinner break, it might be useful for the member in the chair to do two things: one is to give an overview of the things that have changed since the select committee reported back that are found in this amendment, as a preview for us going into those different clauses. I think that would be useful. Another would be if the Minister could comment on how he sees different limits working for fresh water versus coastal water, versus land and soil, versus indigenous biodiversity, and versus air.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt seems to me that we are already familiar with limit setting for fresh water and air\u2014we\u2019ve had different instruments that have done that, and people can see numbers on a page and see it as a limit\u2014but indigenous biodiversity is quite different, and land and soil can be different too. In terms of whether it\u2019s a human health standard to do with contamination of soil, that\u2019s clearly a number, and we can deal with that as a limit, but where does the member see the limits going on things that are not limits that we\u2019ve seen any version of in the RMA before? Then, where we have seen limits in the RMA before\u2014he might say they\u2019re not limits, but something that looks like numbers that are a limit where you can\u2019t get a consent; if there\u2019s a number and you\u2019re already meeting the number, you can\u2019t get a consent if you go above the number.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo talk in speed limits\u2014and this is a bad metaphor, probably\u2014we\u2019re used to speed limits: if it\u2019s 100 km/h, you can\u2019t go 120 km/h. Those sorts of numerical limits are quite easy to consider. Where does the member see the freshwater limits going, departing from the NPSFM? That\u2019s part of the question. And where does the member in the chair see those other limits going that might be more descriptive\u2014and going back to Lan Pham\u2019s contribution about her proposed amendments, I think it would be a useful set-up for the rest of the discussion on limits. Also, going back to my original question, if the member could take us through the changes that have been made, at a high level, so we know where they are actual substantive changes and where they\u2019re not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022c72b66ea18a93a11607e898e155bd52d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c72b66ea18a93a11607e898e155bd52d\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (17:47)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I thank the member Rachel Brooking for the question. In terms of key changes made by the select committee, would the member indicate whether she would like me to take the committee through those or move on to key changes made by the Government through this Amendment Paper?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225777e2259eda6f6e0cf42a74a160bf91\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d5603e9a81e85730cf674bf3c212f753\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: The key changes in the Government Amendment Paper is simplifying the environmental limits framework by removing requirements to set separate resource caps and streamlining the action plan provisions, giving councils flexibility to decide how best to manage resource use before a limit is at risk of being breached. That\u2019s the overall direction in the changes in the Amendment Paper.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe member raised a really interesting question around what are examples of limits, and we acknowledge that air and fresh water already have limits provided for them. For example, I mentioned air has particulate matter, and air must not exceed 50 micrograms per cubic metre, expressed as a 24-hour mean, more than once in a 12-month period. It sounds very technical, but if you\u2019re running a business like a sawmill or an operation like a quarry, it\u2019s important that there are limits established for air quality that can be measured, because if those limits are exceeded, that\u2019s a potential risk, say, to human health. But, when it comes to coastal water, the member is correct, there have not been any limits for coastal water. What are some of things we might want to see expressed as limits? This is an opportunity, I think, where across the House we can agree that we\u2019re actually moving the environmental management system in New Zealand in a really positive direction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll give the example that\u2019s been provided to me: at least a certain percentage of the 2025 seagrass extent must be maintained in each estuary management unit. That sounds like quite a high-tech way of explaining what is something we could all get around: sea grass is a really, really important habitat. I can see the member Lan Pham cheering about seagrass, and if you think about habitat, I mean, I\u2019ve done a lot of diving over the years. There are places in the world where creatures like manatees depend on sea grass. Now, I\u2019ve never seen a manatee in New Zealand. But maybe, maybe\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c12e9e76d9a62957c2bbf3236a6decf6\u0022\u003EHon Dr Duncan Webb\u003C/span\u003E: Looks a bit like you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224ac24ff73ebb99f88ba7a55b1181b0fa\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014maybe, Dr Duncan Webb\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d52c571cdb246f6abf50a39de1a66f7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aa874fc7049db213d210363768e106fe\u0022\u003EGlen Bennett\u003C/span\u003E: \u201CHonourable\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cf08107e02d16056a558ced3c73064e9\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014the Hon Dr Duncan Webb in perpetuity\u2014maybe if we get enough seagrass, we can attract manatees to New Zealand. How would that be? How good! Again, that\u2019s not one of the goals of the Act, but, if we cast forward, potentially.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe member asked for another example about land. This is one which we don\u2019t currently have limits for, for land and soil. It\u2019s been suggested that there could be a limit prescribing that average soil loss from hill country must not exceed so many tonnes per hectare per year. There are many concerns raised, and I remember them being raised around the Hauraki Gulf marine protection bill, during the select committee hearings on that bill, which is now an Act of Parliament. Many submitters were concerned about soil loss and sediment entering the Hauraki Gulf from land development and other activities like forestry, for example, and that there was no way of controlling that. So in the future, under the Natural Environment Act, as we intend it to become, there will be scope to provide limits for land and soil so that some of those\u2014what we might call\u2014wider ecosystem effects can be managed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is not to say that competent and experienced developers aren\u2019t already fulfilling their legal obligations in terms of managing soil loss and managing erosion and sediment control from large-scale activities\u2014earthworks, for example, in a subdivision, or forestry: cutting down the trees and making sure that they don\u2019t lose sediment. But, at the moment, that\u2019s all been managed on a site by site basis. The new system will be able to take a step back and have a wider look, say, at a region, and then it can be broken down by management units.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnother example that\u2019s been provided for me that I can share with you is a limit for indigenous biodiversity. I might state that at least a certain percentage of the 2025 indigenous vegetation, and a certain type of indigenous vegetation, must be maintained. One of the privileges of being a member of Parliament is that I get to fly around the country talking to people to learn more about the problems in their regions or cities. Occasionally, I get to sit by the window and look out. It\u2019s quite clear that there are large parts of New Zealand that are uninhabited that are full of forest\u2014take the West Coast of the South Island, for example. Occasionally, when the plane\u2019s gone off track, it might end up over Fiordland\u2014but that wouldn\u2019t be common\u2014where, essentially, the land is uninhabited and is full of forest.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question might come around to say: well, what would be the right percentage of indigenous vegetation to maintain in those areas? There\u2019s probably scope for a bit more flexibility on those areas, but there are other places, and I have discussed this\u2014I\u2019m sure the member Lan Pham won\u2019t mind me raising this: we had a conversation about the fact that when you look out the window and you look down at the Canterbury Plains, you can see these fantastic braided rivers coming down from the mountains, and you can see all the wonderful primary production activities, the fantastic pivot irrigators, you can see the cropping, and you can see the wonderful cities like Christchurch and all of those great places to live that I visited recently, like Selwyn and Darfield and Methven\u2014Methven\u2019s quite hard to see, but it\u2019s there. You\u2019ve got to get a bit lower; you got to get down to about 15,000 feet to see Methven.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the things you don\u2019t see is extensive indigenous biodiversity\u2014vegetation\u2014along those river corridors. There are a number of reasons for that. At some point, following initial human discovery of New Zealand, the entire east coast of the South Island caught fire. So a lot of the vegetation that might have been there once is no longer there. So there may well be a case that when establishing a limit for indigenous biodiversity and the extent that it must be maintained, that could well become a positive limit; in other words, something to seek to achieve, over time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think that\u2019s important context, because I recall, earlier this afternoon, Minister Bishop, when asked a question in relation to a previous part, said a lot of these matters are temporal; the things that we\u2019re trying to achieve have a time scale. Sometimes, when our aspirations are too urgent and the cost of achieving the objectives, whether they be to protect indigenous biodiversity or to achieve a limit, become far too expensive and the trade-offs are simply not feasible. So one of the important things that we seek to do in the new system when setting environmental limits is to provide that they be achieved in a time frame that is aspirational, potentially, but practical and pragmatic in other ways.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe member asked for me to provide some additional comments and framing as we approach the dinner break. What I hope the members in the House will take away from this is that Minister Bishop and I have taken a thoughtful approach, we\u2019ve taken good advice, we\u2019ve considered the ambitions and the aspirations of many people, particularly, when it comes to improving our natural environment, and we look forward to continuing this journey, with all of you, as the legislation is passed\u2014we anticipate in the next few weeks\u2014and then implemented through national policy direction when we put that out for statutory consultation next year, setting the standards that will apply to all of those domains, limit setting and so on, and we start to see some real progress towards these environmental ambitions we all have.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226f531f8ed414fb3005dd1914ac79ad3a\u0022\u003EHon Members: \u003C/span\u003EMadam Chair!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ee14b9bff45198f3243ee775f80b98a1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, I know how enthusiastic you are, but the time has come for me to vacate the Chair for the dinner break. We are suspended until 7 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterItalicsCentred\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225c72af13486f72f4e891f01fe2ce2cf7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Right, good evening, members. We are now resuming on the committee stage of the Natural Environment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00224d9c50d9c06db779ecfd2de0e7f8c280\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224d9c50d9c06db779ecfd2de0e7f8c280\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (19:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to start off with where the member in the chair, Simon Court, left off before the dinner break. I\u2019d like to thank him from the bottom of my heart for his beautiful display of his love for the natural environment and the importance of seagrass. It was great.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy question does relate to the member in the chair\u2019s explanations of what some different sorts of limits might be. I do thank him for discussing the difference between those numerical limits that we are used to, such as for fresh water and air, and then these different\u2014what he was describing as\u2014limits for, say, indigenous biodiversity. The example given was the corridors surrounding braided rivers in Canterbury and how they don\u2019t seem to have much biodiversity around them, and how that would be a good thing to have; and that we could also do better in our coastal environments with the seagrass and other things.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo my question is quite a simple question, given his explanation of what could be in these limits. I agree with everything that the member was saying in terms of how these are outcomes that I would also like to see, but they just seem to me\u2014some of them; not the water or the air\u2014to be more like targets or outcomes or something that is not yet achieved. Like, great, we want to get there; I in no way want to stop anybody from trying to achieve the things that the member in the chair was talking about. But when I think of limits, the limit is that if we\u2019ve met the limit, then computer says no or the police car is coming to chase you or\u2014you know, that is what the limit is, rather than how can we approve everything.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI was just wondering if he could comment on that difference between\u2014he was talking about air pollution and you\u2019re in a factory and you need your PM10 to be below a certain level; you can measure that. The member was talking about the importance of being able to measure these things, which I also agree with. That is clearly in limit. If you go above a certain PM10 limit, then you might stop what you\u2019re doing. Whereas if you are saying, \u201CWe need more biodiversity along the braided river corridors in Canterbury.\u201D, then that\u2019s not going to stop you from doing something. I\u2019m just trying to work out how he sees that sort of limit\u2014the corridor around the braided river\u2014applying to a planning framework and a framework whereby, as the Minister has described it, the development is enabled within those limits, and if, in fact, they should still be called limits or they should be called something else. I don\u2019t disagree with the ideas, I\u2019m just trying to work it through.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00226e3e8c9b1bd4c77338d439e8e1c31b38\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226e3e8c9b1bd4c77338d439e8e1c31b38\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (19:03)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you to the member for asking that question. Limits, as I have outlined before, are but one tool in the system provided for in the Natural Environment Bill by which to achieve the goals of the Act. I\u2019ll refer the member back to\u2014we are going back, and I appreciate we\u2019ve moved past this in the debate; I\u2019m going to go back for clarification, since we\u2019ve just started again this evening after the dinner break\u2014clause 48, \u201CHow environmental limits are expressed\u201D. I believe that\u2019s the clarification that the member has asked for, either as a state attribute or a stress attribute: a \u201Cstate attribute, being an identified biophysical state of the natural environment\u201D, or a \u201Cstress attribute, being an identified level of biophysical harm or stress on the natural environment that is allowed within the management unit\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 48(1)(c) says a limit \u201Cmay be expressed numerically or in narrative form subject to subsection (2)\u201D, where a state attribute is clearly measurable, meaning it\u2019s expressed in a way that readily enables the assessment of whether the limit is breached, in accordance with any requirements prescribed in regulations or the national standards. In the current resource management system, we do not have a way of describing and achieving a state which that limit\u2014which, again, is not provided for in the Resource Management Act\u2014is intended to achieve.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is a new way of looking at things, and so we will have the ability to describe a state attribute that the limit is intended to achieve on the basis that it\u2019s measurable. Simply describing an aspiration without being able to identify a pathway to get there or milestones along the way that we can measure and calibrate and potentially change the way we\u2019re doing things is no more than a slogan. This legislation is not about slogans. It\u2019s not about announcements. It\u2019s about providing the technical tools\u2014the legislative tools and regulations and national policy direction standards\u2014that enable us to achieve these limits. As we have canvassed that extensively, I would appreciate questions on matters further on in this part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022f84e40737dd8757694b4733bba546184\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f84e40737dd8757694b4733bba546184\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (19:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Just a small follow-up to that. So is his understanding that a limit is not necessarily a backstop; from his description, it can be a whole lot more than a backstop? It can be a forward look, as well?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022a5147fafc5e7ab6761e8543f78a3e423\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a5147fafc5e7ab6761e8543f78a3e423\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (19:07)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u00227b07599154eda5d4ddff52766c9296bc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227b07599154eda5d4ddff52766c9296bc\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (19:07)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Yeah, I\u2019m really interested in continuing on in the bill, and the clause that I\u2019d like to pick up on now is clause 49A. These are about the considerations relevant to developing the human health limits.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ENow, what we heard really clearly from submitters\u2014across the spectrum, really\u2014was concern about how weighty ministerial influence is in the actual setting of these human health limits. What I\u2019m interested in, firstly, is the very start of clause 94A(1)(a), because this outlines that the Minister must be satisfied that the proposed human health limit will, as a minimum, prevent significant or irreversible harm to people and communities. Now, that sounds very reasonable. We want the Minister to be able\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002233e3523f598f23036313c65f152161d4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Did you mean clause 94 or 49?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223be088f7674697f8ee63266c5263a523\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM\u003C/span\u003E: Clause 49A\u2014thank you. I\u2019ve also got an Amendment Paper, Mr Chair, just while you\u2019re situating yourself: it\u2019s Amendment Paper 752, and that\u2019s what I\u2019ll be referring to now. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat I\u2019m interested in understanding from the member is in relation to the \u201Csatisfied\u201D test for the Minister. We have a number of Government members currently\u2014but, also, I don\u2019t want to assign this to any one side of the House; there is risk in any one Government for people to be, shall we say, more flexible with their interpretation of what information and evidence actually is. I\u2019m interested as to the member\u2019s directions about what that test of \u201Csatisfied\u201D actually means. Could it, for example, conflict with scientific evidence? I think what\u2019s really important with this is that we\u2019re talking about human health impacts. These aren\u2019t political matters. They are clear health concerns which are usually, in some form, measurable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhy I\u2019m really interested in that is because I\u2019m proposing, in my Amendment Paper, an aspect that we heard consistently not only from submitters but, particularly, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who encouraged us, as the select committee members, to take this setting of health limits\u2014of ministerial direction generally, but particularly when it comes to these human health limits\u2014out of the political sphere and put it with more independent bodies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne way that I\u2019m proposing to do that, which I\u2019d appreciate the member\u2019s comments on, is actually establishing a human health limits board, that is independent of Government. In that, I\u2019m outlining that the Minister must consider in the appointment of that board\u2014sorry, I\u2019m losing my voice; that\u2019d be terrible, wouldn\u2019t it?\u2014things like the type of matter that the board will be considering, the local community, public health, legal expertise, technical expertise, tikanga M\u0101ori\u2014really basic things that could constitute an option to get this whole system out of political influence and just have a bit of an arm\u2019s length between the Minister and this independent human health limits board. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Minister would still have the ability to publicly notify the human health limit. There would be relevant health guidelines either published or advised by the Ministry of Health. Once the board had met the requirements that are outlined in my Amendment Paper\u2014I\u2019m not going to go through all of them\u2014but then at that point, the board itself would be the one that decided on the setting of the proposed human health limits. I think this would be a really great application for such a serious issue and what the country desperately needs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00229aba41e55a9e7043fad15ea2d81d3e07\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229aba41e55a9e7043fad15ea2d81d3e07\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (19:12)\u003C/span\u003E: I appreciate the member\u2019s suggestions, but what I refer the member to in clause 49A, \u201CConsiderations relevant to developing human health limits\u201D, is there is a very thorough set of criteria that the Minister must be satisfied by. While I appreciate that the member might consider that technocrats might be able to work through the same process, the difference between outsourcing it to technocrats and having a Minister responsible is that the Minister in a Government is responsible. From a democratic point of view, it\u2019s preferable to hold a Minister in Government to account for a process than it is to technocrats. There may be a difference of opinion across political parties, about whether democratic accountability for decision making sits best with elected members and a democratically elected and formed Government, or whether a bureaucracy should be making a decision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo the member Lan Pham, I\u2019ll just cover some of the matters. Clause 49A(1): \u201C[When preparing a human health limit], the Minister must\u2014(a) be satisfied that the proposed human health limit will, as a minimum, prevent significant or irreversible harm to people and communities;\u201D. That is a very high threshold. It carries significant responsibility for the decision maker. Clause 49A(1)(b): \u201Cconsider the relevant health guidelines;\u201D. Once those criteria are met, that is essentially a gateway test. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 49A(2): \u201Cthe Minister may then decide the level at which the proposed human health limit is set\u201D. With reference to clause 49A(3), firstly: \u201Cthe proposed human health limit is set at an acceptable level above the minimum requirements by having regard to\u2014(a) the relevant health guidelines\u201D\u2014so we can expect that they are evidence-based\u2014\u201C(b) the existing capacity of the natural environment to withstand or recover from pressure and disturbances\u201D; and I\u2019ll refer the member to section 57(1). There\u2019s \u201C(c) the impact of the proposed limit in accordance with section 56;\u201D. These are interrelated, and there\u2019s a lot of detail about the matters that the Minister has to take into account. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMost importantly, clause 49A(3)(d): \u201Ca cost benefit analysis of the proposed human health limit.\u201D While we all expect that \u201Csignificant or irreversible harm to people and communities\u201D is avoided as the purpose of developing the human health limit, there is a cost to adopting limits that are far more risk-averse, far more conservative, than are needed to achieve that outcome of preventing \u201Csignificant or irreversible harm to people and communities\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI just want to refer the member to a recent event where decisions were made around projected risks to human health in New Zealand, during the COVID era, where decisions were made that it turns out were not risk-based, and had extraordinary cost, and for which the benefits were not realised. In many cases, the costs were concealed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, here is a process that a Minister, a democratically accountable elected member, in a Government, will be held to account for, that actually tests all of these matters. I would propose that this framework is more robust than any other process in New Zealand\u2019s law, for establishing a human health limit. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226e4539d5261b185cf48111a48d709d05\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: I will just make a comment, that we\u2019ve run for three hours now on this particular part. The fact that the member is giving fulsome answers shows evidence that we are still addressing new material. I will be asking members to start prioritising as we move through here. Arena Williams.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u00221887fab8a6730033a15231b3dc35bc51\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221887fab8a6730033a15231b3dc35bc51\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (19:16)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019m at page 72/73, at clause 50A and clause 50B. I\u2019ll ask them all in one go. Firstly, I want to ask the member in the chair about clause 50B. This is a genuine question. How does this clause interact with the regulatory relief provisions, because it seems to impose a positive requirement on councils to be satisfied that the proposed limit protects \u201Clife-supporting capacity of the natural environment\u201D. There seems to be a positive requirement that they set a limit which might impose costs on those people that the member has outlined. But then, I guess the only protection that they have is if they don\u2019t invoke a limit at all. Is that right, and therefore, does it create this disincentive to applying any limits whatsoever?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo move through my other questions: on the issue of regional councils setting the freshwater limit; the ecosystem definition seems to have restricted this to where there is biodiversity at any given time, not necessarily increasing that, and being agnostic as to what sort of biodiversity it is, and what health it has. The member in the chair misunderstood my question when I was asking him about whether the eels would be edible. The question that he seems to pose, in the definition of ecosystem, and in the application of clause 50, is if there are 50 eels at one stage, and then in the future there are another 50 eels, then that is the system working. The question is: is there a requirement for these limits to improve the health of the eels? In the context of M\u0101ori rights and interests in a lake like Lake Forsyth Te Roto o Wairewa, M\u0101ori have an interest in that area, being a mahinga kai area. Those eels being of sufficient health\u2014it\u2019s not in the human health limits, but it\u2019s also now not in the ecosystem limits. I just want to him to explain how a council was meant to take that into account, because obviously they do. Plan Change 6 of Environment Canterbury\u2019s plan allows for bespoke rules for setting the limits around Lake Forsyth. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is a third question for him: his system now doesn\u2019t allow councils to be able to set their own methodology. But in the case of something like Lake Forsyth Te Roto o Wairewa, it is a shallow lake, one that is particularly phosphorus enriched, which is subject to occasional scion of bacterial blooms. The issue here is that it is unlike the lakes around it and is also not comparable to other deeper lakes in the North Island. When he speaks about braided rivers, that is a consequence of the lake now being in the state that it is, that those braided rivers are getting shallower, and the sediment run-off into the lake is affecting its health and the biodiversity within it. Wouldn\u2019t it be reasonable, in that case, for a regional council to set its own methodology. I understand that he is trying to design a system which has one national role for the methodology, but there will always be these outlier cases where it doesn\u2019t make sense to follow the national methodology. There doesn\u2019t seem to be any way out for a council who have a generally unique ecosystem that is not being contemplated the national level.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00220d642fcb853b3148151cad43ae086141\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220d642fcb853b3148151cad43ae086141\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (19:20)\u003C/span\u003E: Really good question. I\u2019ll answer that first, and then I\u2019ll come back to the member\u2019s question about interaction with regulatory relief.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe system does provide for communities when contributing to council\u2019s limit setting, which we must accept will follow a national methodology. It is intended that be prescribed in standards, which are available to be developed under this legislation. The methodology is intended to be prescribed. We cannot have 67 territorial authorities, 12, 14 regional councils\u2014forgive me, I\u2019ve lost count of how many there are in New Zealand; there\u2019s so many\u2014coming up their own methodologies for determining limit setting. It\u2019s going to be a standardised process, but within the process is the opportunity for communities, particularly whether there are important ecological or cultural values to provide more weighting, so that if the matter of eels in a shallow lake with impacts around nutrients or, as a member described, nitrification or algal blooms, if the community wishes to set a limit that focuses on ecological health for the benefit of creatures in the lake\u2014eels\u2014and then they can choose to do so.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs part of the process, they will be forced to confront the costs of that. Whereas in the current system, in the Resource Management Act, a council can choose a limit. But then it comes to, well, what does that mean for the rest of the community, in terms of people who grow food, businesses, your local council\u2019s needs for infrastructure, and, potentially, to have somewhere to discharge waste water. I\u2019m not saying that\u2019s appropriate. I don\u2019t know enough about the conditions of the particular lake, but the community will have an opportunity to make those trade-offs through the limits setting process, rather than saying \u201Cwe want this really, really, really strict limit and we\u2019re just going to ignore all the downstream or second order effects of that\u201D. So communities will have the ability, at place, to protect important ecological values, if that\u2019s the value they wish to protect, on the basis that they have confronted all of these other potential knock-on effects. We believe communities should be in control and have a say. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004530\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll just come to the member\u2019s question around clauses 50A and 50B around whether, when setting limits, our councils will be exposed during the decision-making process to, potentially\u2014if the limits they set around indigenous biodiversity, which is the domain that the member raised\u2014and if they seek to apply those limits to private property, will that application be subject to regulatory relief test? Absolutely. Again, that provides really, really important tension in the system. So again, it\u2019s about exposing the costs and the benefits. There\u2019s a benefit-cost analysis required in the limit setting process, so that if the costs of imposing such a limit are very high, that can be discovered through the limiting process. Then communities, planners, and decision-makers will have an opportunity to make choices and make trade-offs. If these values are so important, which in many communities ecological value is very important, in fact it\u2019s the most important, then council\u2019s decision-makers can proceed, but they will be confronted with the cost. It\u2019s important that that\u2019s known upfront; not something that\u2019s kicked down the road to future generations or the next council or just left hanging out there as a fiscal or other type of liability.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022b651ae60e147f5485fc044af1da1ad4e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b651ae60e147f5485fc044af1da1ad4e\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (19:24)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I really appreciate the member\u2019s answer. That\u2019s not quite what I anticipated because of the formulation of 50B(1), where it\u2019s before designing the ecosystem limit. So I guess, the only way, I think that the member was saying, the councils have out of paying that regulatory relief is to have no limit, which is not what I thought.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ECan I ask him just two examples related to Lake Forsyth. Isn\u2019t the way that the current market works for land in that area that because the water discharges are limited because of Plan Change 6, the value of the land is lower; that new landowners pay less for that land because its commercial value is lower now? Isn\u2019t the value of those discharges already included?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002248224b0014850e455f0d4e78cf328f22\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002248224b0014850e455f0d4e78cf328f22\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (19:25)\u003C/span\u003E: I do appreciate the member\u2019s broad and deep knowledge of many specific issues around New Zealand. The member\u2019s made a very valuable contribution with her questions in this debate. I\u2019m not familiar with that specific case. The information you\u2019re seeking from me, I can only provide it in relation to this clause.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll refer the member to clause 50B(1)(c), the \u201Ccost-benefit analysis of the proposed limit\u201D, must be had regard to when developing ecosystem limits. Now, the costs might be the cost of choosing a particular limit and what that might require, in terms of if it\u2019s applied to private land, are the costs of providing regulatory relief to the landowners whose use of that land is impaired in the way provided for in the legislation. So I hope that\u2019s clear. We have covered this extensively and I don\u2019t intend to go back to it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen it comes to the other matters that the member raised, if with existing planning controls being applied to land\u2014I think the member mentioned Plan Change 6\u2014if somebody buys a piece of land with existing planning controls on it after this legislation takes effect, and they willingly accept those controls in the sell and purchase process, caveat emptor, buyer beware. That landowner will not be eligible for regulatory relief. We do not intend that people arrive and go \u201Cnow, I want regulatory relief because of this thing\u201D. You have purchased the land with these controls on it. So we\u2019re trying to be pragmatic and practical in the way we approach it. But absolutely appreciate the member\u2019s concern that particular communities, they might want to set ecological health limits that protect a particular value, like the habitat of eels, for example, or tuna, and they will have the ability to do that. Where there is a cost to doing that, that will be transparent and available to the community planners and decision makers at the time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022ee719bb49a98c8207e70f6a6a7a35045\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ee719bb49a98c8207e70f6a6a7a35045\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (19:27)\u003C/span\u003E: A small question on this point at clause 50B. The member in the chair was talking about regulatory relief and that applies to biodiversity, but regulatory relief does not apply to water standards, freshwater quality. Please tell me if I\u2019m wrong. And so is he then saying that when he\u2019s talking about costs, he\u2019s talking about 50B(1)(c), that cost-benefit analysis of the proposed limit, or is he saying that regulatory relief applies to every ecosystem health limit?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022e493922e6e0f729d0f29e4b0540e7d0f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e493922e6e0f729d0f29e4b0540e7d0f\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (19:27)\u003C/span\u003E: No. In the scope of the bill, it only applies, in the National Environment Bill, to indigenous biodiversity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u002215628d9a76f7c1e53bd567954defa90d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002215628d9a76f7c1e53bd567954defa90d\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (19:27)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. And noting your guidance to keep moving and I\u2019m directly keeping moving.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c5a9620e9c4864d95a8af2e1aa5e1ed8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Good.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225568c71499954792aa146d66dfccfd4d\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM\u003C/span\u003E: My Amendment Paper, which I want to touch on in this, what should be a short call, is number 674. This is of absolute relevance to the bill because this is where the environmental limits framework fails and it fails to deliver. It\u2019s in the space in the consideration of the actual setting of these environmental limits. And it\u2019s the fact that the so-called environmental limits are not actually environmental limits because there are numerous clauses throughout the environmental limits section\u2014including 49A, 50B, 56, and 57A\u2014where it makes it really clear that these so-called environmental limits are only considered when you look at social and economic factors.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, this is a fatal flaw when it comes to, you know, the attempt at this being any form of an enduring framework. I would like to hear from the member whether he would consider the fact that environmental limits can stand alone as they are, as environmental limits; the social and economic factors can come into the timing of the achievement of those limits. That is how it has played out and absolutely can play out in the future, instead of compromising the environmental limit itself by those factors.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat is really deceptive when you have social and economic factors coming into the actual environmental limits themselves is that it is really hard for communities to know what they are actually aiming for, and the biophysical state they\u2019re aiming for, and why they are aiming for it, which is another really clear part of this whole system. It\u2019s: why are we trying to aim for that, and under what time frame?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy amendments that I\u2019m proposing are: let\u2019s simply leave the environmental limits framework, but let\u2019s uphold its integrity. I\u2019m interested in whether the member in the chair, Simon Court, would consider this and uphold its integrity by having environmental limits that are environmental limits, because we know that clouding it with these social and economic factors is not going to get us anywhere.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022c269aad0e065a2aa728fe3f360d8cc21\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c269aad0e065a2aa728fe3f360d8cc21\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (19:31)\u003C/span\u003E: The member Lan Pham raises a really good point, so I just want to clarify the intent of the legislation, but before I do, I want to reflect on the member\u2019s concern that limits set under this new framework will not be enduring.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELet\u2019s be clear: none of the attempts to establish national bottom lines for water quality, whether it\u2019s nitrogen or any other matter, has been enduring. Despite 35 years of the Resource Management Act, national policy statements for freshwater, national environmental standards, none of them has endured. It\u2019s because setting an aspirational limit that covers the whole country, or even a region, in the absence of confronting the trade-offs\u2014who lives in the community, who benefits from a certain limit, who pays the cost, what opportunities are forgone in terms of economic growth and change, in terms of social development, in terms of social mobility\u2014by selecting a limit that is so constraining that the activities that are reasonably expected to occur there\u2014remember New Zealand is still largely unoccupied. We have developed large parts of it for primary production and forestry and our towns and cities, but it\u2019s still relatively unoccupied and undeveloped. To establish environmental limits that severely constrain people\u2019s social mobility and ability to provide for their families and to assume that that is the only thing that matters has not worked. It has not endured.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do appreciate the member\u2019s concern that we provide for environmental limits that are enduring, that continue to have social licence, but in order to do that, the intention of this legislation, the intention of the Government, the clear intention of Minister Bishop and I, is that we confront those matters at the time the limits are set, not choose an aspirational limit and then look the other way and wonder why there\u2019s so much noise, there\u2019s so much grit, the environment continues to degrade in places because it\u2019s impossible to implement the tools that we have to implement. Very specific limits, particularly around fresh water\u2014we simply don\u2019t have that level of specificity in the way that we have inputs into the natural environment and responses. Now, we might know, for example, how long it takes for a drop of water to land on a mountain top, say, above Pupu Springs\u2014forgive me; that\u2019s the term I\u2019ve always known it as\u2014in T\u0101kaka. We know roughly how long it takes for a drop of water to land on top of the hills\u2014Minister Potaka might be able to help with my pronunciation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229d5b13d601794bb282d99453116ad395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002211ae86b2323e72cf12c556fd2155d42b\u0022\u003EHon Tama Potaka\u003C/span\u003E: Waikoropup\u016B.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221801ac9bc26b737eb6692aa966e524cd\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m struggling. We know how long it takes, roughly, for a drop of water to land on top of the mountain and end up in those springs? It\u2019s about eight years. But there are very few places in New Zealand where we have that level of detail, and it\u2019s very, very difficult and expensive to get.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s important, when we\u2019re setting limits, that we aspire but that we confront the costs of what setting certain levels of limits might mean to the community that we operate in, to our local economy, to our social aspirations and social mobility, and that we make the call then, because, if we provide communities with that opportunity to have that conversation and to make those trade-offs, it is far more likely\u2014and, in fact, that is our intention\u2014that environmental limits are enduring and that communities will then be able to plan a pathway to achieving them. If they are aspirational or if they are more close to the status quo, there is a realistic and practical pathway to achieving them. I absolutely get the member\u2019s concern, but I am confident, this Government is confident, Minister Bishop is confident, that what we have set out here\u2014the methodology\u2014is the best way for achieving enduring limits and durable and achievable aspirations for our environment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u00226f8d11b2db0b6354a5e10b84f8b1572e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226f8d11b2db0b6354a5e10b84f8b1572e\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (19:35)\u003C/span\u003E: Does the member in the chair, Simon Court, accept that taking into account social and economic considerations in environmental limits compromises the environmental limit as a concept?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00226ee1dfc6a3af27c5157c9e837247a13a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226ee1dfc6a3af27c5157c9e837247a13a\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (19:35)\u003C/span\u003E: No, absolutely not. We all exist in the environment. We live in the environment, we have houses in the environment, we build in the environment, we dig minerals out of the environment that we use to turn into things like cell phones, which I\u2019m sure the member has at least one of, as does every member in this Chamber.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat else do we do in the environment? We fish, we hunt, we drive\u2014sometimes we like to drive off road. We actually like to drive on the actual environment, not on the road. All of these things are part of who we are as humans, and this is an opportunity to challenge ourselves about what is important, because we are going to have an opportunity to be very clear about what our social and economic and cultural aspirations are when we set a limit relating to ecology. When the member uses the term \u201Cenvironment\u201D, I\u2019m assuming she means ecology, because the environment is either the built environment, as defined in the Planning Bill, or the environment as defined in this bill. We need to be specific\u2014we\u2019re talking about ecology\u2014and there\u2019s a trade-off between choosing an aspirational ecology limit and balancing against all these other factors.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, if I go and explain this outside of this Chamber and I go to a public meeting or I go and meet with farmers or I go and meet with environmental NGOs, or I talk to young people\u2014I talk to people at, say, a home show, where, you know, because of the career I\u2019ve chosen, sometimes I get to spend many days standing on the cold concrete floor of the Invercargill Licensing Trust Stadium, at the Southland Home Show, where I get to meet many people who might challenge the way that the member Lan Pham and I see the world\u2014what they want to know is that we understand the environment, the ecology of the place they live, what values they seek to protect, but also how important it is that they continue to have social, economic, and cultural opportunities to express themselves and live their best lives.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c0714667c1fc4b8da557f76c05646381\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: I appreciate the difficulty of asking the members on my left to keep moving when the member in the chair, Simon Court, is very fulsome in his replies and probably giving more material to remain around this level.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u0022a3459289bb0c4286dd4fdbec87de75f4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a3459289bb0c4286dd4fdbec87de75f4\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (19:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. To the member in the chair, Simon Court, I was speaking very specifically about biophysical ecosystem health and human health limits that are measurable. I wasn\u2019t talking about aspiration. I was talking about pure ecosystem health function when it comes to human health and ecosystem health. But I take the member\u2019s comments about desiring that there are pragmatic steps along the way. His own words just before were that we need to take hold of this and make sure it\u2019s not something that\u2019s kicked down the road.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, when we\u2019re talking about the limits themselves, whatever they are, why, then, are we crippling ourselves when it comes to actual progress and time frames? My amendment, which doesn\u2019t have a number on it but was tabled\u2014one of the amendments tabled on Wednesday, 26 August under my name\u2014simply, within these clauses, changes the interim limits from 10 years to five, which is what was in the original bills until they were pushed out by the majority of Government members on the select committee and the Government. The reason why that is so important is because then we would actually get somewhere.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe example that I want to give is directly related to later in the bill, where the Government has again dropped these last-minute amendments that squash Plan Change 1 and Plan Change 2 in the Waikato and Manawat\u016B. Within that very material, it says the bills will be in place for the Waikato in 2033.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, what that means is that the first interim limit that comes into this system will be in place for 2043. That has got to be, to the member, an absolute failure of this system, and would he please consider a system that actually functions in a direction and a drive for some form of environmental or human health improvement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00222f4bac519589d2276bbc40c62384e918\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222f4bac519589d2276bbc40c62384e918\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (19:40)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019d just refer the member to the limit-setting process in the legislation. It\u2019s been carefully thought out. I won\u2019t be accepting the member\u2019s proposed amendment. We have received reams of advice about the matters that the member refers to, and the Government\u2019s decision, the Minister\u2019s decision, and my decision is expressed here in the legislation through drafting. I invite the member to read it, but it\u2019s all there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022154727523a59431ab210aea1cf707272\u0022 data-id=\u0022931ccba30ca1e675254794b1c0a88735\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022154727523a59431ab210aea1cf707272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022931ccba30ca1e675254794b1c0a88735\u0022\u003EHon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (19:41)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I note that the Minister has said my questions are related to clause 55 and 56, and I note that the Minister has said that there\u2019s been a fair bit of thought that has gone into setting limits and the methodology that is used to set limits and so on and so forth. However, in clause 55(1)(d), it basically says that the Minister, when preparing national standards to set human health limits or ecosystem health limits will need to \u201Cspecify a methodology\u201D, and it goes on to list the \u201Cmanagement unit\u201D, \u201Cecosystem health limits\u201D, and so on and so forth.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere were a fair few submissions to the Environment Committee on this whole piece about limit-setting and how Ministers will set limits, and the concern that was raised by many was that it needs to be a methodology that is specified and based on science, basically scientific baselines for these limits. I wonder if the Minister could share a little bit about what the specification or the methodology that the Minister needs to specify will be based on. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll wrap up in a minute, but I\u2019ve got a couple of other questions, particularly around whether there will be ecological modelling that needs to be done before the methodology is set, whether those will be peer reviewed, and what sort of baseline data sets will be used? I particularly refer to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who has repeatedly raised the fact that we don\u2019t have baselines when it comes to measuring ecological health nationwide, so what sorts of data sets will the Minister be basing that on? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do also have some questions for the Minister around safeguards. A fair bit of the anxiety that was expressed by submitters across this whole bill is the concentration of ministerial powers through this legislation. That is also seen when it comes to setting the methodology and establishing limits as well. What safeguards can the Minister point to in this legislation that will prevent, potentially, say, future Ministers from further weakening limits and changing methodologies as well that lead to the limit-setting? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00225f5e5369b64e8552f45a82ab9339b811\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004564\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225f5e5369b64e8552f45a82ab9339b811\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (19:44)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll answer the second part of the member\u2019s question first. In terms of safeguards, under clause 58A, \u201CSpecifying methodologies for setting ecosystem health limits\u201D, subclause (2), \u201CThe Minister must be satisfied that the methodology protects the life-supporting capacity of the natural environment to an acceptable standard after having considered\u2014\u201D a number of matters. There are significant safeguards, and in clause 58A(4), \u201CThe Minister must consider, when developing national standards that specify a methodology or minimum acceptable level, how the standards can allow for future improvements to science and \u2026 [modelling] methods in a timely manner\u201D; in other words, by incorporating material by reference. The last thing we want is to set standards that essentially ossify. We want the system to be agile to be able to respond to new information.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn response to the member\u2019s questions on criteria for decisions relating to environmental limits, they are set in standards in terms of clause 55, and \u201Cthe Minister when preparing national standards\u201D has to specify a methodology, and that\u2019s in accordance with the matters in clause 58A. There is extensive detail on primary legislation, and it will be further particularised through national standards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022f69c003db21f5d4cd4ff053d286ed89e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f69c003db21f5d4cd4ff053d286ed89e\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (19:45)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Going to the conversation and the bit of back and forth about the role of the economy, and I want to just to ask a simple question to the member in the chair about the relationship between clause 56, which is, \u201CConsidering impact of proposed environmental limit or methodology\u201D, and that includes a list of things that \u201Ceconomy\u201D crops up in, as does \u201C(e) the efficacy and cost of available methods to manage effects within the proposed limit:\u201D, and how that relates back to clause 50B(2), which is the cost that he was talking about to communities that\u2019s not regulatory relief in terms of things that aren\u2019t indigenous biodiversity. I want to know how those two relate to each other, and, in particular, any costings to the community, because the member in the chair was talking about how there\u2019s going to be some transparency and there will be some costs and there will be trade-offs, so his version of limits is very different from my version of it being a backstop.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m then going to jump ahead to clause 79, which is in a different subpart, but it\u2019s relevant to this line of questioning. I have a published Amendment Paper 747 that would delete clause 79 because that is, \u201CNational standards may authorise specified activities to breach the environmental limits\u201D. There\u2019s been some amendments to what was reported back from the Environment Committee, and this clause was not in the bill as introduced. It popped up somehow in the select committee process by the majority, and now it\u2019s been amended in this Amendment Paper, and even if you\u2019ve gone to all this trouble of setting an environmental limit and you\u2019ve done your cost benefits and you\u2019ve paid your regulatory relief, if it\u2019s indigenous biodiversity or whatever it is, then even then, if the Minister is satisfied that there is a net public benefit in authorising the activities after having considered the public benefits of authorising the activities, and the public costs of authorising the activities, and then some harm, then you can get around these limits. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn an earlier contribution from the Minister, he said\u2014I can\u2019t remember what it was in relation to, but he said, \u201COh, you can\u2019t just get around these limits because there\u2019s got be a public benefit.\u201D But the test for the net public benefit has to include a consideration of, I guess, the public costs of authorising the activities, which I think would be some of the costs that the member in the chair was talking about before. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bigger point of this contribution is for the member to be clear about the relevance of all the costs when setting any limit, because it seems that the cost factors crop up throughout, and that, in fact, any decision on the limit can be undone by the cost. To say, as the Minister has been saying, that this whole scheme of new legislation is going to have these environmental limits\u2014limits that, as Lan Pham said, might not happen until sometime in the 2040s\u2014they might just not ever exist because communities will say, \u201COh, well, we can\u2019t afford them.\u201D, even if regulatory relief isn\u2019t relevant given what the member has been saying about the costs and the community bearing the cost. When we hear \u201Ccommunity bearing the cost\u201D, that means ratepayers, and I\u2019m happy for the member to tell me that I\u2019m wrong and that it\u2019s not ratepayers, that the community is devised in some other way; but I would like an answer to my bigger question as well, which is, can environmental limits always be knocked out by economic factors?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002257247dd5f33fa2efd92378d64eac304d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002257247dd5f33fa2efd92378d64eac304d\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (19:50)\u003C/span\u003E: Just in response to the member\u2019s question around how does clause 56 relate back to clause 50B and the cost-benefit analysis, clause 56 is considerations a Minister must make in relation to the impact, and the cost-benefit analysis is an additional requirement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004571\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust coming to the member\u2019s questions on clause 79 about national standards which might authorise specified activities to breach a limit, there are some extensive criteria that the Minister has to satisfy, particularly around the net public benefit in authorising activities, after having considered the public benefits of authorising the activity versus the public cost. One of the things this Government is very clear about is we are not going to be hiding the cost of different options when communities and, in this case, Ministers are making decisions. For far too long, decisions about protection of environmental values have been taken in isolation from the impacts of that decision and the consequences on communities. This Government is clear: we are not hiding these costs. Communities need to know. If they choose to face the costs, they can protect values in the case of this provision. The Minister will be confronted with those costs when choosing whether a national standard may authorise a specified activity in breach of an environmental limit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI have come back to this theme repeatedly. It is our intention that trade-offs are transparent and costs and benefits are revealed so that New Zealanders, on the whole, have an opportunity to understand what choosing different limits and choosing different courses of action means. If we don\u2019t have that opportunity, we will be surprised when things happen that we weren\u2019t expecting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u0022cb50373c995428670b07a8fb049664ba\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cb50373c995428670b07a8fb049664ba\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (19:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to pick up specifically on the Minister\u2019s comments just then about the impacts and costs. Is his intention, for example\u2014because I can appreciate that he\u2019s talking about the cost of environmental protections. Is he also talking about the cost of a lack of environmental protections?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe reason I\u2019m asking that is specifically in Canterbury, we have, for example, Ashburton, Tinwald, Selwyn District Council, and Christchurch City Council all looking on various scales at millions of dollars at the lower scale to hundreds of millions, if not in the billions, to treat drinking water or source drinking water sources that they can no longer rely on because they are too contaminated with nitrates. Is the member, when he talks about those costs and impacts, talking about that entire picture, particularly those externalities where communities are paying the costs now of a lack of protection, because that is the concern and what we heard increasingly from submitters. That\u2019s my first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second question is around the national standards. Why is it that the Government is ruling out that at a national level, national standards could set an ecosystem health limit as an option? The Government has been really deliberate in clause 58A(3)(d)\u2014which is the subject of my amendment\u2014and this is, again, in the grouping of amendments that were tabled at 11.53 on Wednesday. I\u2019m proposing to delete this determinant that the national standards can absolutely not prescribe an ecosystem health limit. There are well-understood ecosystem health limits when it comes to the environment that can apply at a national scale that would actually enable the clarity of direction about how things can happen in the country, and where investment should or shouldn\u2019t be. These types of evidence-based, scientific, and m\u0101tauranga-informed decisions can apply at a national level in the right circumstances. I don\u2019t understand\u2014and I\u2019d love the member\u2019s comments\u2014as to why they are simply being ruled out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022b2527b231ab3eb61454666be9e188fb2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b2527b231ab3eb61454666be9e188fb2\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (19:55)\u003C/span\u003E: In response to the member\u2019s question around whether the costs of environmental degradation and health will be relevant, it is not the cost but the effect that must be considered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn response to the member\u2019s second question around environmental limits, we had this concept of national bottom lines under the Resource Management Act. It turns out that when you apply a national bottom line intended to protect an ecological value at a fast-flowing river over alluvial gravel in the South Island, that may well be the right value to apply in that circumstance\u2014in, say, Canterbury, in the foothills of the Southern Alps. But if you tried to apply that same value to water coming out of a sediment-rich catchment \u2014in, say, Horowhenua, Manawat\u016B, or in Northland\u2014it\u2019s a completely inappropriate, so-called national bottom line or national limit to apply, because the catchment has completely different characteristics.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat we\u2019re intending to do is to provide for communities to establish their own limits based on a national methodology, because it\u2019s important when limits are being set that we can see at a national level that there\u2019s a process being followed and we actually get a sense of what level of protection is being applied, what are the likely costs in different places, and what are the benefits. We need to have a much better understanding at a national level about what are the impacts of different choices, but, currently, we don\u2019t.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u0022d42f220749dc75d7f5b86bfb1cba3a77\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d42f220749dc75d7f5b86bfb1cba3a77\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (19:56)\u003C/span\u003E: I have just one direct follow-up on that one question. The member, in response, said that not the cost but the effect will be taken into account. That does not make sense for the example I\u2019ve given with drinking water, because the effect of polluted drinking water, for example, for Christchurch City, would absolutely be avoided at any cost, and so that\u2019s before the effect actually takes place. Where people are drinking polluted drinking water, the city would have moved to avoid that\u2014where is that cost being picked up?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022693aedd6e7f360eaf994e448120cba1f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022693aedd6e7f360eaf994e448120cba1f\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (19:57)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve answered many times what the system is intended to do. Let\u2019s be clear: nobody should be drinking contaminated drinking water. We have wastewater standards specifically intended to address that matter after the Havelock North chaos, where there were a number of regulatory failures, a number of enforcement failures, and a number of failures by public sector agencies who had all the information that they needed to have made decisions that prevented illness and, potentially, deaths\u2014it\u2019s not quite clear what the actual impacts were\u2014and they failed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve had to establish a whole system to protect drinking water, stand up a new agency\u2014Taumata Arowai\u2014to deal with the failures of individuals and organisations that did not meet their statutory obligations. Let\u2019s be clear: Christchurch City Council\u2014you\u2019ve mentioned it\u2014has statutory obligations to provide clean drinking water. There are a number of ways they can do it. It turns out there\u2019s technology. If you live in an apartment building in Singapore, the water you\u2019re drinking has already been flushed by all the people who live there. It comes back up as clean drinking water. If we fire a rocket into space and you go up and stay on the space station, guess what you\u2019re drinking? There\u2019s no pipe coming from planet Earth\u2014there is technology available for this stuff. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI don\u2019t want to make light of the member\u2019s concerns, but we have to clear that the new system provides for that information to be considered and trade-offs to be made, and where there are effects that are unacceptable and limits need to be set that provide for strong ecological values when compared to other values, communities will have the opportunity to do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022c33371c0772f5da380ddf2f4099c768d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c33371c0772f5da380ddf2f4099c768d\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (19:59)\u003C/span\u003E: I am rather surprised to be talking about recycled drinking water in space, but here we are. Now, I think\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226197a1e942d482185c74da98c8164a2d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s not a legitimate new topic, I might say, Ms Brooking\u2014not when we\u2019ve been debating this for coming up to four hours\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220d9d2589b0189539fba9b3e43db9072e\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, come on! I\u2019ve got a whole portfolio on space.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228a859873b3c4196e6cf7924220fde280\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014as attractive a proposition as it may seem.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ff8d5eb9eb2887c31448604958ef2754\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Well, OK. So back to these limits on planet Earth\u2014in Aotearoa even. Now, I think there\u2019s maybe been some conflating of the two different types of limits. We have the human health limits, which can be set nationally, which go to the drinking water standards, etc., which the member was just speaking about, and then we have the environmental limits that are not set nationally but the methodology for those is set nationally, and then some regional councils will work out what those limits are for their rohe, for their area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ESo for those environmental limits where the methodology is set, my question for the member is, can you get to a situation whereby there are no limits because there have been some cost-benefit equations that effectively knock out the limits? That is the question: if there\u2019s any mandatory requirement for them or if everybody decides they\u2019re going be too expensive, do we then just not have limits? Never mind it\u2019s in 2040; I\u2019m just talking about in 2030, for instance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227365291bb736c95f2e1b73690266f3eb\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m not sure we can do much more with limits. When I can understand it, that\u2019s probably time to keep moving.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f72b6dd935a9904c72091e5d248cfeb0\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I was going to move on to national rules in clause 75. This is quite a big, different change though\u2014and I note other members might want to go back to limits. The Minister keeps telling us that it\u2019s the fundamental part of the system, yet it seems to be, perhaps, that they can be nothing\u2014the environmental ones, not the human health ones. So clause 74, \u201CNational rules\u201D. I have Amendment Paper 746 and this is to insert the clauses that were in the bill, as introduced, that provided for a market-based allocation. For some reason, very mysteriously, they provided a methodology for there to be market-based allocation\u2014they didn\u2019t set it up\u2014but at the moment, we have the Resource Management Act that is first in, first served, and that entrenches a whole lot of gain for some individuals who were lucky enough to be the first in so that they were first served. We have a problem in the New Zealand economy where we have a whole lot of, in particular, M\u0101ori land that hasn\u2019t been able to get the capital to get the water, to go and use it to make the land more productive, and they\u2019re effectively locked out because of this first in, first served rule.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIt also means that we are not necessarily getting the most efficient uses or the most high-value uses of that water, and I know that I am talking to an ACT member in the chair who is much more interested in the economic instruments than I am. So my suggestion here is that we reinsert those provisions from this Government, as the bill was introduced, to include that market-based allocation for water. If the member\u2019s ready, I\u2019ll leave it there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002297245330a563774d85f1175e38b0701a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002297245330a563774d85f1175e38b0701a\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (ACT) (20:03)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I do appreciate the member\u2019s definitely not new-found but wholesome appreciation of the markets. For the member\u2019s benefit, that section was taken out at committee stage. It\u2019s not in this Amendment Paper as tabled. What we do intend is that between consent holders, who have allocation, the exchange or provision of freshwater, in particular, between consent holders is enabled. We\u2019ll be doing more work on that. You\u2019ll see through the national policy direction the illustrative documents out for non-statutory consultation right now; there is discussion around irrigation and other matters; and we anticipate that standards will provide more detail around how that is provided for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECurrently, under the Resource Management Act, if a water-permit holder wants to share their water with a neighbour who might have a need for it with a permit holder who doesn\u2019t have the need for it at the moment, potentially while they\u2019re standing up a new business or developing their investment proposals, the way it\u2019s been treated by some councils is it\u2019s essentially treated as a new consent application. It makes it very, very difficult to make the most of the water that\u2019s already allocated. What we have heard is that in many parts of New Zealand, water appears to be fully allocated on paper, even though when councils are looking at their groundwater bores, for example, they\u2019re saying it doesn\u2019t appear to have been used in the way that the paper allocation would suggest. So we want to make sure there\u2019s provision in the system for the allocation that\u2019s available to be utilised, and that will be further detailed out in subsequent national policy direction and standards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust coming back to the member\u2019s question around limits, our ecological health limits. Are they required? Yes, a health limit or an ecological health limit will be required for each domain in each regional area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022ec09319e036f1f4c5bdd514d52bc1d4c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ec09319e036f1f4c5bdd514d52bc1d4c\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (20:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Just a tiny little follow-up on that last point, that there does have to be\u2014and there must be\u2014an ecological health limit for every domain at some point eventually. Could that be an incredibly minimal limit? So, if we say there\u2019s already seagrass, and we won\u2019t have any further diminishment of the seagrass, could it be that ambitious and be totally the opposite of the beautiful vision the member gave us before dinner?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022b1cc998183d9de595431422212c4f498\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b1cc998183d9de595431422212c4f498\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (20:07)\u003C/span\u003E: I have described the Government\u2019s intent around limit-setting multiple times during this debate, particularly over the last one hour and seven minutes. I won\u2019t go back to that. It\u2019s unlikely there\u2019s going to be a limit for seagrass in Central Otago. They may not need a coastal limit if they don\u2019t have coast, but it will be up to the communities to choose the level of aspiration when it comes to ecological values, and balance them against other community aspirations, as I have described many times now in this debate. The member will know there are some very, very special places in the environment to New Zealanders, particularly to people in different districts and regions. I have no doubt that communities in those areas, whether it\u2019s at Wai-ko-pup\u016B Springs\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229d5b13d601794bb282d99453116ad395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ad15cf75637d5010d05b21c2bf8141fe\u0022\u003EHon Tama Potaka\u003C/span\u003E: Waikoropup\u016B.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002255ff832132f29c1540566eb9ad0eada8\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: I am going to continue to struggle with that\u2014at Pup\u016B Springs, in T\u0101kaka, will seek to protect that incredible natural feature by selecting appropriate limits. Again, I\u2019ve been over this time and time again. It\u2019s clear in legislation what the Government\u2019s intention is, what the provisions, what the limit-setting methodologies are, what the constraints are, what Ministers have to consider and where departures may occur, and the significant constraints and tests that come into it when departures are sort or a Minister seeks to make rules, for example, that depart from or, seek to go past the limit. It\u2019s all here in black and white\u2014the reasons are here in black and white\u2014and the reason is this Government believes that Parliament should make laws and we should write them down clearly so that those who are tasked with implementing the legislation and other instruments have a clear steer and they can get on with their job, which is what we intend them to do when the legislation passes and gets Royal assent one month after it passes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00221cf966773ff6a6feea52986a736f79cd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221cf966773ff6a6feea52986a736f79cd\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (20:08)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s not clear. It is just not clear. There is so much that happens in the higgledy-piggledy Minister-setting methodologies and then in all of these economic decisions that it\u2019s absolutely unclear. This is inefficient legislation and we should go back to my Amendment Paper 699 and just make the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management the freshwater limit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ENow I\u2019m going to move to clause 72, which is the \u201CContent of national policy direction\u201D. I have Amendment Paper 744, and this is that the national policy direction must be consistent with the purpose of this bill\u2014which of course I would have made a proper purpose\u2014and it must also be consistent with integrated management. As I\u2019m sure the member in the chair knows, I think that integrated management is very sensible because we don\u2019t all live in little silos that somehow separate us from air and water and soil and biodiversity etc.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00224ef3ce01a95b323b7528cb5b3e45dcb7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224ef3ce01a95b323b7528cb5b3e45dcb7\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (20:10)\u003C/span\u003E: The Government\u2019s been very clear: integrated management is not a concept that exists in this legislation. There is a funnel. The concept of the funnel is that when making national policy direction, national policy direction essentially looks to the goals and direct key outcomes that a key instrument must achieve and provide for. It\u2019s all set out in black and white in clause 72.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002208f8e8708b8a23d9fa3908a22a283957\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Again, we now need to be moving forward.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u0022381210f5aa2cfddcc4f04bef18fa97bb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022381210f5aa2cfddcc4f04bef18fa97bb\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (20:11)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, thank you. Moving forward, Mr Chair, I really want to touch on this new clause 61A\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228f29958e9a26dfc4ef4f74cb0f7481be\u0022\u003ESimon Court\u003C/span\u003E: Well, that\u2019s going backwards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228515068596936ea01ea5d543109e1220\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014because it is a new section, and the removal of the caps was in the last-minute Amendment Paper from the Government, OK? This is absolutely critical to any progress on environmental limits under this Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do want to respond to the member\u2019s sort of insisting that I keep coming back to this and I keep coming back to this. This is the environmental limits section of this new resource management system that is entirely novel, some of the changes of which have just been dropped on us literally in the last minutes because Amendment Papers are still coming through. This is why it\u2019s important that we\u2019re able to scrutinise this, and I really appreciate the Chair moving us through. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat I want to understand, firstly, is why, when the Government and us, at the select committee process, were so\u2014it was so emphasised to us that this new way that the Government was going to go about these reforms was through these action plans and the caps, and that was how we were going to achieve things. Then, suddenly, the primary tool, being the cap on the resource use, disappeared as a tool at the last minute. This was not agreed by the Environment Committee; this is direct lobbying of Ministers that has come in and removed this. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI would like to hear the Minister\u2019s response as to whether removing the cap on resource use, like, for example, a maximum amount of nitrogen in a catchment per year\u2014which has been demonstrated, particularly in Taup\u014D, to be a tool to actually achieve some form of environmental outcome. Now, I don\u2019t even know if the science is clear as to whether that is improving. I do think from the little I know about it that it may be holding the line. Now, if that\u2019s the aspiration, then using caps as a tool is absolutely critical. Why has the Government removed this, above and beyond the select committee process that we went through where these were agreed? Not all of us agreed. We thought this was a baseline, and yet the Government had sought to remove them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think that it is absolutely critical to any form of credibility of the system that action plans are able to set caps and they are actually translated into catchment groups or whatever way it can work. I\u2019ve got an Amendment Paper to that end, which is amending clause 64\u2014and again, I\u2019m sorry, Mr Chair, I don\u2019t have a number on that. It\u2019s still part of the amendments that I submitted on Wednesday at 11.53. This is amending clause 4. What I want to understand from the member, as well, is: without the action plans being able to put caps on resource use, what exactly does he perceive and his Government perceive to be the driver of any improvement\u2014like what is the constraint? Is he expecting that, for example, catchment groups, councils, or a group of landowners are going to voluntarily come together and make solutions that will impact the way that they are farming currently? What is the driver? I would love to hear it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022441a50d98bc7ac5358761a07653f328b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022441a50d98bc7ac5358761a07653f328b\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (20:15)\u003C/span\u003E: In answer to the member\u2019s question, we\u2019ve amended the legislation and deleted reference to caps as they were causing confusion and they had no regulatory effect in the system. Instead, how to manage resources prior or at risk of limits being at risk of breach will be left as a matter for councils.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022bfa3e3ccf3c810ab65af7c53bdadfb06\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bfa3e3ccf3c810ab65af7c53bdadfb06\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (20:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. It is critical that we address these clauses, which are the operational heart of the environmental limits regime that the Government has outlined as critically important to this bill. They are in clause  60A through to clause 65. I\u2019m also seeking the member\u2019s comment and I\u2019ll ask all of the questions together.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBuilding on Lan Pham\u2019s question, my different question is that with the old clause 66, which is now deleted, we seem to have been left with a target setting and a date that can be in 10 years in the future for anything other than the target to be operative. I want to know from the member in the chair what the tension is in the system. If we acknowledge that, as he says, the caps were causing confusion, I ask whether first-in, first-served resource allocation as part of the caps system is a legitimate question, whether the action plans could do more than just coordinate and require restoration and behavioural change\u2014these are all legitimate questions. But if he\u2019s set himself a date that\u2019s potentially 10 years out, that seems to be even less aspirational than any other of the transitional provisions which allow a five-year, generous runway for the new regime to be up and running. I want him to help us to understand when we might get to a point in future where councils are held to either a cap or an action plan, or even both, but not none of them, and I ask how that interacts with the other machinery in the limit-setting part of the regime. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also have a question for him about the deletion of clause 76 at page 92. This is in the next part. It\u2019s the restrictions on the national rules for fishing. I can\u2019t tell if that deletion has been included somewhere else in the bill, but if it is a genuine deletion, it seems that this was a provision which protected, say, recreational fishers and their ability to enjoy this particular sport and recreational activity, and it seems to be gone. What is the justification for that, and who asked for it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00223c4a5ada4c207681d5ff45fc0f50eb7f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223c4a5ada4c207681d5ff45fc0f50eb7f\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (20:18)\u003C/span\u003E: The question has come up and I\u2019ll respond to the member, who, I think, had a similar concern. Why were caps removed? Because it simplified the legislation. To be clear, particularly for the member Lan Pham\u2014who is concerned about the role of caps\u2014caps can still be used; they\u2019re just not required. They\u2019re still a tool available to councils, should they wish to use them, but let\u2019s be clear that clause 60B does the heavy lifting. It still requires councils not to breach limits. Caps are a tool\u2014I see the member is very excited. She\u2019s probably got further questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004615\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EJust in response to Arena Williams\u2019 question, clause 66 was merged with clause 65. I understand that that came out of the revision-tracked version of the bill coming back from the Environment Committee, and the provisions were put into new clause 60C.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u00229a233b58d2a77e363927b4620488162e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229a233b58d2a77e363927b4620488162e\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (20:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019m really keen to respond to the member\u2019s comments, then, because perhaps he could elucidate for us in saying\u2014like that\u2019s great that caps can still be a tool. That\u2019s really good to establish, because I wasn\u2019t clear about that when the entire clauses were deleted, and so it\u2019s great that, presumably, they exist somewhere else.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat I\u2019m really interested about is what was clauses 65, 66, and 67, because these are the clauses where action plans were actually compelled to propose rules to remedy any breach of environmental limits. We\u2019ve also got clause 66, \u201CAvoiding breach of environmental limit\u201D, and clause 67, \u201CBreach of environmental limit\u201D. In the Government Amendment Paper, which has been dropped at the last minute, these clauses are entirely deleted. I would love to be told right now that those sections have just been moved somewhere else. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIs it the case that action plans no longer have to remedy a breach of an environmental limit\u2014noting that the environmental limits are already not environmental limits; they\u2019re only arrived on once we look at social and economic factors. Where in the bill does it say that anyone has to do anything to improve the environment or to meet some form of limit that means that we are not in a race to the bottom?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022b899223a1faef430b13a8ea56a8287bd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b899223a1faef430b13a8ea56a8287bd\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (20:21)\u003C/span\u003E: Just in response to where those clauses have gone, please refer to my previous answer. They were moved when the revision-tracked version came back. The clauses have been amalgamated, so they\u2019re still there. The member\u2019s question\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b00dbaf860e0abdcb886a6a100fdfc35\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: Where have they been moved to? I\u2019m really keen to understand that. Where have they been moved to?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b0d227b1c1719654a15b0def781892cb\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: I will have to get the officials to write me another note, because I\u2019ve replaced it in the stack\u2014I\u2019ve misplaced it in the stack of 200 here, OK?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004622\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e8380aa771bd8b5125bbf3863bbc8fbd\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: Please do. It would be really comforting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223eb13d2e6209030c7f4f9594b14eab5a\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: But I can assure the member that it is the same answer as I previously gave. The member\u2019s second question, I understand, was about action plans. Clauses 60, \u201CAction plans defined\u201D, is removed as no longer necessary. Content on action plans is provided in other clauses. I\u2019m sure the member will then ask which ones.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u002224dbbdd193333f08b778883489007b6b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004624\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002224dbbdd193333f08b778883489007b6b\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (20:22)\u003C/span\u003E: Whilst the member in the chair looks for his old notepaper, I\u2019ll go to a different clause. I\u2019m at clause 77, which has been amended a wee bit, but I do have a published Amendment Paper, and it is Amendment Paper 700. It was for what was clause 77(3)(c), and the changes that have been made in this Amendment Paper are similar in terms of \u201CNational standards\u2014(c) may\u201D\u2014and I emphasise the word \u201Cmay\u201D because my published Amendment Paper 700 changes the \u201Cmay\u201D to \u201Cmust\u201D\u2014\u201Cinclude directions relating to\u2014(i) the allocation of natural resources; and (ii) environmental limits.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe point I\u2019m trying to get at here is that we \u201Cmust\u201D have these environmental limits in the national standards, rather than \u201Cmay\u201D. I am particularly perturbed after the discussion we\u2019ve had this evening that whilst the member in the chair tells me that it is compulsory to have those environmental limits, they might be akin to nothing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00226e4327451c44ee2fde5a8a0101680c5b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226e4327451c44ee2fde5a8a0101680c5b\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (20:23)\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, I don\u2019t accept that member\u2019s assertion. I\u2019ve been very clear. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E] Bless you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004627\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002246dede88b5d0b180802055466b4fa6f8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Whoever is sneezing, use a hanky.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002269a78094cca009aa19a4564e117420a0\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, I\u2019ve lost my train of thought. Oh, actually\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004629\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022520b984ca8948c1e6813ac7f67bc1358\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, he\u2019s got the train back.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223912846c2da09e134a594f13c1d77ed1\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: Oh look, I reject the member\u2019s assertion. Limits have value. The limit-setting process is described here. As I\u2019ve mentioned before, there are trade-offs involved. The member\u2019s proposal that there must be limits, a set of national standards for various things\u2014there\u2019s only one \u201Cmust\u201D, and that\u2019s around human health standards. That\u2019s because that\u2019s very important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004631\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAt a national level, we\u2019re all humans, whether we live in\u2014let me just pick some members. We live in Dunedin, Christchurch\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022784f4e929aed4ea6a05d1a10add6eccb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f8595d7f500d254013218984eb8958ae\u0022\u003ERyan Hamilton\u003C/span\u003E: Hamilton\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004633\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002249a447ac4300cf57d63e1e7e4ea9fbe0\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014Hamilton\u2014that\u2019s easy\u2014and the North Shore of Auckland. We are the same humans, and we need our health to be protected in the same way. The people of Southland are very hardy, and I know that because when I go to Southland or I go to the airport there very early in the morning, I see people there wearing shorts and a T-shirt in the middle of winter, chucking the bags on the plane. So maybe we could learn something about human health from studying the people of Southland.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere must be a human health limit, but the intention is that environmental limits are set by regions, by communities, and, with respect to management units\u2014which is a techie way of saying \u201Cplaces\u201D\u2014spaces and catchments. We won\u2019t be accepting your Amendment Paper, Rachel Brooking. While I understand the purpose behind it, we don\u2019t accept the intention. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere was a question that Lan Pham asked about where have things moved in the bill. Clause 65 and clause 67 have moved to clause 60B and clause 60C, and action plans are now found in 60D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u00225156f6a34d33af5f6d050254bc6dcb8c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225156f6a34d33af5f6d050254bc6dcb8c\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (20:25)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019m just noting down those clauses so that I can read them because it\u2019s actually really confusing when you get an Amendment Paper that is the entire bill, and, for no apparent reason, it\u2019s just reshuffled everything. It is taking us quite a long time to work through it, but, fortunately, time is one of the things that we do have.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m interested in clause 77, which is about national standards, and which deals, in subclause (1), with adverse effects. It\u2019s just interesting to me that, as I understand it, in this bill we\u2019ve got no particular hierarchy, and so no statutory hierarchy, if you like, baked in. But here it appears that the national standards\u2014so that\u2019s at a national level from the Minister, I\u2019m assuming\u2014can dictate how and in what order adverse effects are to be avoided, mitigated, remedied, offset, or compensated, and it strikes me that that seems to be an ability of the Minister, through national standards, to prioritise. This is not an expert area of mine, by any stretch, but it strikes me that you could say, \u201COK, we\u2019ve got a consenting of dairy farms in Canterbury and we want to prioritise economic growth over nitrate seepage into the water supply, and so let\u2019s make sure with regard to the adverse effects that the mitigation for what\u2019s going on is mitigated in an order that prioritises economic growth over water quality.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004638\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt goes on and talks about national standards setting \u201Cwhen it is practicable\u201D, which seems a really strange thing for a national standard to do, because practicability is very much about the facts on the ground, if you like. It\u2019s about the particular activity that\u2019s going on. If it\u2019s riparian planting, fencing, or whatever, it\u2019s about the particular property and activity, and then you\u2019ve got when it\u2019s appropriate for adverse effects to be offset or compensated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004639\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo I\u2019m just curious as to what\u2019s intended by this ability at a national standard level to, essentially, order adverse effects in terms of which ones we will take steps in respect of, and then the ability of a Minister to say, essentially, that \u201CThere are some adverse effects which it\u2019s not practical to mitigate, so don\u2019t worry about those, and other adverse effects can be offset.\u201D, by perhaps planting some native bush a couple of valleys over. So I\u2019m just curious, particularly, as to how that clause 77(1) is intended to work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022f7d2332f6f60c270d98b625ce0fb16a5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004640\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f7d2332f6f60c270d98b625ce0fb16a5\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (20:29)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for his question. Just in relation to some of the changes that he\u2019s observed in the Amendment Paper, some parts have moved, and that\u2019s to provide for a more coherent translation policy intent into the legislation as drafted so that can be picked up, and, particularly when it comes to a national policy direction and national standards, that work will be started immediately by those tasked to do it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004641\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe member asked\u2014and it\u2019s actually a really important point\u2014why can national standards specify, in clause 77(1), how, where, and in what order adverse effects are to be avoided, mitigated, remedied, offset, or compensated, and when it is practicable for adverse effects to be avoided, mitigated, remedied, and when it\u2019s appropriate for those effects to be offset or compensated. Now, the reason that this is provided for in national standards is because there may be some effects in some places that it\u2019s important to avoid, but it may be that an activity with similar effects in a less sensitive environment, those effects can be mitigated or remedied.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis clause 77 provides another content for national standards to be very specific about how, particularly for things like infrastructure or common activities like quarries, that the effects that we anticipate from them, the ways that those effects need to be managed can be set out in a structured way and in a consistent way so that these matters don\u0027t need to be relitigated consent by consent across the country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004643\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223da581908e0c9f73f80fc76832dd2e64\u0022\u003EHon Dr Duncan Webb\u003C/span\u003E: But dust is different everywhere, right?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220b9ba5e301db4a10fbc028c051d39ed0\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: I won\u2019t respond to the member\u2019s heckles. I can see that there are many members on different sides of the House who are absolutely fascinated by other content for national standards. I\u2019d suggest the member Grant McCallum pick up a copy of the bill and refer to clause 77 so he can familiarise himself with it, because no doubt many of his constituents will be interested in approaching him as to how they might utilise the benefits of this new system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004645\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI invite the member and I invite Catherine Wedd and Minister Tama Potaka to familiarise with it, because this legislation is going to be one of the best things that ever happens in their communities. And, of course, Vanessa Weenink. But for the benefit of the member Duncan Webb, it is important that national standards have the flexibility to set out how, when, and why the effects of different types of activities can be avoided, remedied, mitigated, offset, and compensated and in what circumstances. That is the purpose of national standards: national consistency, clearly understood ways of doing things, and a clear rationale so that it doesn\u2019t have to be relitigated consent by consent across the country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u00226809eabe2dbe397446e9e983361f1aa0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226809eabe2dbe397446e9e983361f1aa0\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (20:32)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. That\u2019s helpful, member in the chair, Mr Court, but it still seemed peculiar to me, so I\u2019m going to ask another question. It was really helpful that you gave the quarry example. If you\u2019ve got a national standard as to how the order in which effects are\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de471622cb31056a66f71b2b2ca7f7e4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Can I ask for the chit chat on that side of the House to come down a level just so that people can focus.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004648\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e918cbfc66fe23c629818443482bf72e\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB\u003C/span\u003E: They were heckling because I was making a good point. If you take a quarry, you might have effects such as dust, noise, and runoff. Now, those three things to have a national standard that says, OK, let\u2019s do dust first, then noise, then runoff seems really odd, because if you\u2019ve got a quarry that\u2019s close to residents, then dust and noise is going to be really important and runoff might not; but if you\u2019ve got a quarry that\u0027s next to an important waterway, then runoff is going to be the most important thing and you should address that first. That should be your priority.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe quarry example is a good one. I\u2019m glad that you gave an example because it strikes me that, for any consent or any activity, you\u2019re going to actually want to have an order of priorities which suits the environment in which it sits. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00226996cfbf0b1ab623529bf1a1a039f783\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004650\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226996cfbf0b1ab623529bf1a1a039f783\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (20:33)\u003C/span\u003E: I certainly do thank the member for that question and seeking further clarification, and he\u2019s absolutely nailed it. An activity that might have significant impacts on people through dust, noise, traffic, for example, like a quarry, if it\u2019s in a remote location, then those impacts on people are going to be unlikely, and probably easier to manage. If it\u2019s a quarry in an area that\u2019s subject to urban intensification, it\u2019s going to be much more difficult to manage, so the purpose of national standards is to be clear as to how and in what order adverse effects are to be avoided, mitigated, remedied, offset, and compensated. Where is appropriate for those adverse effects to be offset or compensated and in what circumstances which specific effects are managed under the Natural Environment Act as it will become and the Planning Act as it will become? Because, if we think about trying to provide certainty for people who seek to invest to expand something like a quarry, knowing in advance what the national rules are that are intended to apply to manage known effects or reasonably anticipated effects is really important. If it\u2019s a quarry or a mine, say, in a very sensitive environment, it would make sense that some effects should be avoided or mitigated, whereas, if it\u2019s an at least sensitive environment, potentially they could be remedied ora combination of.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ELook, the member and I can\u2019t possibly hope to explore all scenarios where national standards might be applied. Even if we let this committee of the whole House stage go all the way through to Saturday night, we wouldn\u0027t have enough time. But I can assure the member that, as the Minister and I have turned our minds to how national standards will be applied, we are thinking about the very matters the member raised, and we anticipate national standards will be able to address them in an efficient way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022 data-id=\u002295a69fdf95ee8cd1f3c99b5c75756031\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002295a69fdf95ee8cd1f3c99b5c75756031\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON (Green) (20:35)\u003C/span\u003E: I wanted to go to page 92 to speak to a clause 76, which is deleted, and to ask the member in the chair, Simon Court, around why this has been deleted as restrictions on national rules around the control of fishing, because the contents of this national rule for the controls of fishing, I thought, would align quite nicely with our existing marine protections\u2014as my colleague from our Northland electorate would know, Patukeha Ng\u0101ti Kuta and Te Uri o Hikihiki, kaiwhakahaere of \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Er\u0101hui tapu\u003C/span\u003E or marine protected areas in the Bay of Islands and Whangaruru.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWhen we have this transition into the new bill and the way that the new system will operate, we\u2019ve still got a bit of grey area. I\u2019m not quite sure as to how the marine protected areas will continue on or not, but also when we have the deletion of clause 76 around the restrictions on national rules for control of fishing, why did we delete this, and are there provisions within the legislation elsewhere that maybe I\u2019m missing? We\u2019ve got to go back to our communities and we\u2019ve got to be able to convey the why and then how. So if the member in the chair could help me find the relevant part in the legislation where I can point to the community where there is provision. Kia ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022506bab994c13369978643212578333ea\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022506bab994c13369978643212578333ea\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (20:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Certainly. I thank the member for the question. That is one of the easier questions I\u2019ve had tonight. That clause has been deleted. It\u2019s been replaced by a catch-all clause at 10B in Part 1, which are \u201CRules that control fishing\u201D. So I hope the member will be able to take her community through that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u0022c93efe18f8511a42176686a9cd91dce0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004655\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c93efe18f8511a42176686a9cd91dce0\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (20:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, thank you, Mr Chair. I\u0027m really keen to pick up on where the Minister directed me to with the movement of the breach\u2014the action plans and breaching environmental limits. He and officials directed me to clause 60B. I\u2019m really interested in this because what we\u2019ve seen in this perpetual cycle, particularly over the last few decades, is that even where there have been environmental limits put in place and they have been breached or it\u2019s well understood that they will be breached, there has not necessarily been a key driver and a key impetus to actually change things to avoid it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I\u2019m really pleased to see that the regional council must take all reasonable steps to avoid the breach of an environmental limit and evaluate as to when that limit will be breached and how they might manage it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question that I\u2019m still unclear about and which we never had a satisfactory or clear answer at select committee as to what this key driver would be is, yes, the regional council must, but when must they? We know that planning cycles are in 10 years, and we now know with the changes that the Government has made, that even interim limits, which are meant to be these stepping stones, are at 10-year intervals. When exactly is the regional council\u2014or whatever council, be unitary or whatever\u2014compelled to take action other than simply at the next planning cycle?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00227b9e8701ed4ae77815c12605bb4d18cb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227b9e8701ed4ae77815c12605bb4d18cb\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (20:39)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. At all times.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227d19573a8ba4d8283b17374978c8ea2\u0022 data-id=\u00222a2d92b1ceb9ba8f6d2c068e847c33aa\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227d19573a8ba4d8283b17374978c8ea2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222a2d92b1ceb9ba8f6d2c068e847c33aa\u0022\u003EGRANT McCALLUM (National\u2014Northland) (20:39)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e9ec76e0d8968264b43a0c682e575a54\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: I am going to take another call, but just to note that we have been getting engagement from the Minister and people have been moving methodically forward through the provisions, so that is appreciated by the committee, but I would ask members to do move forward through the provisions. I call Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u002205b3459c91cc9c6fa75f06aae0fa8cf5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002205b3459c91cc9c6fa75f06aae0fa8cf5\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:40)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I am going to move on a little bit further, noting that my colleagues may still have questions. But I think one of the things that the under-secretary has mentioned a couple of times that I thought was really interesting, and this is specifically with regard to the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper 710\u2014I want to pinpoint a particular clause where we see some of these repetitions: clause 85, new subclause (3A), and we see it again in subclause (3C)(a). Now, the under-secretary previously has mentioned this term \u201Cpracticable\u201D a couple of times. Now, this is interesting, because in most cases when we\u2019re looking at \u201Cpracticable\u201D, it means that the limit itself doesn\u2019t need to necessarily be met if other circumstances prevent that from being met. So we see the term \u201Cpracticable\u201D in health and safety laws all the time: whether it\u2019s \u201Creasonably practicable\u201D. But what isn\u2019t clear here, let\u2019s say in the context of national policy direction, is what are some of the limitations or expectations when setting the national policy direction on what is practicable when that isn\u2019t being met.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWe saw this sort of phrasing previously in clause 71(1)(b) in terms of \u201Cresolution of conflict as far as is practicable.\u201D So my first question to the under-secretary is: in this case, what are some of the circumstances that will make a proposed national policy direction impracticable? When we are looking at clause 86, \u201CConsiderations for national standards\u201D, it does state that national standards, at least for the Minister, need to be satisfied and be compliant to the same equivalent or to the same effect as the redress arrangement under the original Resource Management Act. So does that mean that that level of practicability wiggle room that you see with the national policy direction doesn\u2019t necessarily apply to the national standard, and the national standard is a little bit more strict in terms of that wiggle room? So I want to check with the under-secretary on that question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002203de42fe4bca360ec8d9f9c27bdff2c1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002203de42fe4bca360ec8d9f9c27bdff2c1\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (20:42)\u003C/span\u003E: This is a well-understood term in resource management. It means that the decision maker is not required to resolve completely conflicts, but should as far as practical.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u002260ced24eee44538865c31f6ade65ce02\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002260ced24eee44538865c31f6ade65ce02\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (20:42)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I don\u2019t think this clause has been referred to to date\u2014because I do think it\u2019s important that we work through every clause that the Opposition wishes to explore, in a methodical manner\u2014and that\u2019s clause 79, \u201CNational standards may authorise specified activities to breach environmental limits\u201D. This kind of seems strange to me, and it\u2019s almost a question that the Minister may not need advice on, because it\u2019s about what this means. They\u2019re not limits if you can breach them; they\u2019re guidance. I guess the really interesting thing that struck me was subclause (1)(a), which has been redrafted to, essentially, say, \u201CDo a cost-benefit analysis.\u201D It says, \u201Cthe Minister is satisfied\u201D\u2014in authorising breaching these limits\u2014\u201Cthat there is net public benefit \u2026 having considered\u2014(i) the public benefits \u2026 and (ii) the public costs\u201D. So you\u2019ve been asked to do a cost-benefit analysis on whether or not you should breach a fundamental limit. It strikes me that this is actually at the heart of this piece of legislation, because what it\u2019s saying is that the environment is a tradable commodity, which kind of turns the whole thing on its head.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ESo I guess my question to the Minister: is there anything that is not tradable? What is the bottom line if we have environmental limits that the Minister can say, \u201CWell, drinking water for Canterbury is not as valuable as increased exports.\u201D, if he can say that mining on the Denniston Plateau and the absolute loss of biodiversity is not as valuable as the export of coal? So I guess I\u2019d really be interested in his explanation of the philosophy behind this clause, and whether he would support the statement, which I don\u2019t, which is that there is nothing which can\u2019t be sold for the right price, which is what this appears to say.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022b37387dfd3332835cec2190182f92ef5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b37387dfd3332835cec2190182f92ef5\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (20:45)\u003C/span\u003E: This topic was canvassed extensively with Rachel Brooking around the public benefits of authorising activities and the public costs of authorising the activities. The member raises a number of hypotheticals. Acting in the chair tonight, I\u2019m not able to provide legal opinions\u2014neither is any other member of the Government. I\u2019m also not going to challenge the committee with philosophy. Needless to say, if the Minister is satisfied there\u2019s a net public benefit in authorising the activities after having considered clause 79(1)(a)(i) and (ii)\u2014public benefits and public costs\u2014and the Minister\u2019s considered, and come to a view on, the \u201Cpotential harm to any aspect of ecosystem health or human health that the \u2026 limit is intended to protect;\u201D\u2014and on and on it goes\u2014there may be an authorisation for specified activities to breach environmental limits.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ELet\u2019s be clear: there are a number of significant and rigorous tests which would be applied to that decision. No doubt, for very sensitive environments where the impacts of an activity might be very significant, the Minister would no doubt at that time turn their minds to how to resolve very, very significant conflicts. But there may be other cases where the benefits significantly outweigh the costs and that decision is simpler. Again, we can\u2019t possibly hypothesise on what might confront a future Minister, but we have provided as far as practicable, Dr Webb, a rigorous set of tests and a process. We are confident, based on the advice we\u2019ve had, that this is appropriate in this case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u002259dbd5b09337b02ba5ba6aae50ad6aeb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002259dbd5b09337b02ba5ba6aae50ad6aeb\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:47)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to move on to another section, noting that we are coming towards the end of Part 2, but I think this is quite a significant one. This is clause 90, \u201CAmendments to national standards without full process\u201D. I\u2019ll specifically focus on subclause (1)(b). It depends on what happens after this\u2014I\u2019m also happy for the under-secretary to take some further advice from the officials. The reason I want to hone in on this one is because it says that the Minister may make recommendations to implement our obligations under international conventions, protocols, or agreements. In this case, I want to specifically focus on agreements. I want to give an example to the under-secretary, that when we\u2019re looking at our New Zealand - European Union Free Trade Agreement (NZ-EU FTA), specifically when we\u2019re looking at chapter 7 on sustainable food systems, and also chapter 19 of the free trade agreement (FTA). One of the things that is holding both parties accountable\u2014and this is something that is binding\u2014is regarding the protection of our natural environment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004669\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ESo I do want to check, I guess, two questions, which is: (1) what has been the advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade for this particular part and for this bill regarding our compliance against the NZ-EU FTA and NZ-UK FTA. I think the EU FTA is probably the more crucial one at this stage for this particular purpose. If we get into a situation where we do see that it might put some of the binding aspects of our NZ-EU FTA into question, particularly around things like environmental protection and climate action, would then the Minister be able to implement national standards quite quickly and without due process? Is that something that we can now do under this particular clause\u2014clause 90(1)(b)?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00223918c6c91269ca1debfa4215bedcc392\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223918c6c91269ca1debfa4215bedcc392\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (20:49)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair, thank you. Thank you, Mr Xu-Nan, for that question. This clause mirrors a similar clause in the Planning Bill. It\u2019s intended that a Minister is able to amend a national standard without full process, specifically for the reason set out here. So it\u2019s minor, it\u2019s technical, it\u2019s process, it\u2019s in relation to, say, an update of a New Zealand standard under the Standards and Accreditation Act. The member notes that it may be to implement New Zealand\u2019s obligations under any international convention, protocol, or agreement to which New Zealand is a party. But I\u2019ve been advised that in the event that there was an agreement that New Zealand entered into which required the updating of a national standard, then that advice would be sought or obtained from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. But as far as I\u2019m aware, this is a carry-over provision from existing legislation and it mirrors the Planning Bill. We just need to make sure that every time a minor or technical amendment needs to be made in order to ensure compliance with other relevant standards, the Minister doesn\u2019t have to go out and initiate a full consultation on a national standard.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u002268d5e7444bde3dc6f264a6da5be62646\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002268d5e7444bde3dc6f264a6da5be62646\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:50)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you so much. That does clarify a lot of things, but I just want to check: what the under-secretary is saying is this is only when it\u2019s minor. What does it mean if it\u2019s something that, for example, a party found to be more than minor\u2014does that mean that the Minister needs to still do a full process, if under the party of an international agreement deems so? And the other question is just around whether the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) has provided any sort of advice around consistency with our existing agreements.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022bafaa9119bb3614df7e71ad050e9300e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004672\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bafaa9119bb3614df7e71ad050e9300e\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (20:50)\u003C/span\u003E: I don\u2019t have anything further to add on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022 data-id=\u00223fde4bd6fb550ed14cbbfae39e1a292a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223fde4bd6fb550ed14cbbfae39e1a292a\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON (Green) (20:51)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019m wanting to address, on page 99, clause 84, the process for making a national instrument and the process that the Minister undertakes to publicly notify a national instrument. There needs to be a seeking of comment \u201Cfrom iwi authorities [or] from any group or sector that the Minister considers appropriate by\u2014\u201D. When we\u2019re looking at the development of national instruments, if, for example, our whanaunga up Te Tair\u0101whiti, Ng\u0101 Hap\u016B o Ng\u0101ti Porou, are impacted, the Minister needs to seek comment from Ng\u0101 Hap\u016B o Ng\u0101ti Porou or others who have a marine and coastal area (MACA) takutai moana marine title, but also PSGEs\u2014post-settlement governance entities\u2014relevant to the rohe.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat I am wanting to understand is\u2014because it sets out a bit of a process in terms of the consultation or to notify, and that\u2019s in the pre space. But if the Minister decides that he is going to notify, there\u2019s a proviso in (2)(b) where \u201Cthose notified must be given what the Minister considers to be adequate time and [the] opportunity to make submissions on the subject matter of the proposal;\u201D. I\u2019m really keen to unpack, because we know that in iwi M\u0101ori land, whether you\u2019re a MACA claimant, whether you\u2019re a PSGE or a hap\u016B or a marae, these aren\u2019t often our day jobs\u2014responding or replying to public notifications from Ministers or Government departments or local government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt looks as though it\u2019s very weighted towards what the Minister determines and what the Minister considers. Where was the workings with iwi M\u0101ori\u2014in particular because we\u2019ve got listed iwi groups and PSGEs and Ng\u0101 Hap\u016B o Ng\u0101ti Porou as examples of those who need to be prioritised in the notification and the seeking of comment. What engagement has the member in the chair, Simon Court, or those Crown officials undertaken in terms of establishing what this process is? And then, how do we know that the Minister, in considering all things being equal, providing adequate time and opportunity for submissions to be garnered\u2014where are the safeguards for iwi M\u0101ori in this space, knowing that sometimes a Minister\u2019s priorities may not actually match or reflect what community or iwi M\u0101ori might think is genuine engagement and time to do the due diligence together?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022d9e1602d73d90f681bfc9ffd1e59b213\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d9e1602d73d90f681bfc9ffd1e59b213\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (20:54)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member H\u016Bhana Lyndon for her question. The Government\u2019s been very clear, and it\u2019s set out in legislation in Part 2, that there is a role defined for M\u0101ori to participate in the making of national direction, national instruments, and we\u2019ve been very clear that\u2019s one way that the Crown intends to provide for M\u0101ori interests in this legislation. That is why, under clause 84(1A), Ng\u0101ti Porou is proposed to be consulted and any relevant post-settlement governance entity in accordance with subsection (1). That is upfront and that is deliberate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004677\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe member\u2019s question around time frames\u2014when we get to clause 84(2), normal time frames for public consultation on an instrument are 20 working days. That\u2019s not uncommon; that\u2019s the time frame for consenting, it\u2019s the time frame for all kinds of other matters of consultation\u201420 working days. But, in paragraph (b), \u201Cthose notified must be given what the Minister considers to be adequate time and opportunity to make submissions on the subject matter of the proposal;\u201D. There potentially may be circumstances where more time is required, either given the sensitivity of the matters or that they have greater significance, but there may be circumstances.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHere is why we haven\u2019t been specific: because it may be that as we go through iterating and reiterating\u2014being agile and being responsive in the way that national instruments can change and adapt to the needs of the system and the needs of system participants\u2014in some cases for matters that exceed that threshold of being minor and technical but aren\u2019t requiring of a full-blown complete consultation on the whole package, there\u2019s an in between that provides the Minister some discretion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004679\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut I want to reassure the member that Minister Bishop and I have turned our minds extensively and received extensive, detailed advice on how the Crown fulfils its obligations to iwi M\u0101ori. Throughout this legislation, that is reflected in many, many places.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022 data-id=\u00227661666fee82b174f7fe55cf2a754ef9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004680\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227661666fee82b174f7fe55cf2a754ef9\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON (Green) (20:56)\u003C/span\u003E: Follow up, please. Thank you to the member in the chair, Simon Court, for providing that response on the diligence and the depth of consideration of how M\u0101ori voice might be reflected in considering the making of national instruments and the development of, and how we want the system to be agile. We want it to be able to move and flex according to whatever the regional needs are, and national needs as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EConsidering, as I stated earlier, the ability to respond and the ability to be timely makes an assumption that iwi M\u0101ori have capacity to do these things according to the 20 working days or otherwise. In hap\u016B and iwi land, we\u2019re not necessarily sitting around waiting for the next consultation document to come out; we\u2019ve got day jobs, most people, or they\u2019re part-time Resource Management Act (RMA) practitioners on behalf of the hap\u016B or the iwi. So I\u2019m really keen to understand how it is intended that there is resource supplied to support capacity and capability\u2014because capability sometimes requires technical expertise to come in and help iwi M\u0101ori to respond.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022b1e0330240ada8e03019360c51f11c76\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004682\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b1e0330240ada8e03019360c51f11c76\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (20:57)\u003C/span\u003E: Look, I recall the member H\u016Bhana Lyndon has asked me that question in relation, I think, to the Planning Bill\u2014potentially around a similar clause in the Planning Bill. This legislation does not provide for resourcing or funding different groups, whether they be iwi M\u0101ori, iwi, or hap\u016B, so that\u2019s not in this scope. That\u2019s not part of it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004683\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut I also just want to comment on the member\u2019s point, which I do genuinely understand\u2014it\u2019s not just iwi and hap\u016B who are not sitting around waiting for the Government\u2019s next consultation. I hear very similar things from business organisations, from the environmental NGOs, and from people who are surprised when they see a notice in the newspaper about something that\u2019s being consulted on in their community\u2014say, by council\u2014and will find out afterwards they didn\u2019t know.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004684\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELook, clearly we have an important role when producing national instruments, to follow a process, make sure there\u2019s lots of opportunity for engagement, and particularly when we do the first national instrument\u2014the first piece of national direction. That is why Minister Bishop and I were really, really intentional about getting the national policy direction\u2014an illustrative version for non-statutory consultation\u2014out for all of those individuals and groups that want to understand best how the system works. So before we get to the formal process for making a national instrument, which will follow and which will undergo statutory consultation and all the other controls around it, there is a document right now which I urge the member to have a look at, to take back to her community, and to discuss and provide feedback over\u2014what I understand is\u2014the next eight weeks as it\u2019s open for submissions, which is much longer than 20 working days. The reason for that, is because we want to use this time, while the legislation passes through the House, when it achieves Royal assent, before it comes into effect, to get as much for feedback from those who are interested in the system as possible.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004685\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo all of those who\u2019ve been listening tonight, I hope that you\u2019ve all taken away a much greater understanding of the intent of the Government, but also how we\u2019ve turned our minds to the detail, particularly when it comes to implementation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004686\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002210e5411b81ad7f561aad9fc0b03e46db\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: I am looking for new material. H\u016Bhana Lyndon.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022 data-id=\u0022a77a2962e1dbdd7728f6193ef316c8ce\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004687\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a77a2962e1dbdd7728f6193ef316c8ce\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON (Green) (21:00)\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019ve been told that thinking of resourcing and support for iwi-M\u0101ori participation, because we\u2019re providing scope for them within the legislation to participate\u2014but the resourcing of the system and the support to iwi M\u0101ori to participate in the system is out of scope.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004688\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI guess that comes to questions, in terms of: how do we implement the legislation to give effect and be really meaningful and purposeful? As we\u2019ve heard, there\u2019s 20 working days for consultation; it\u2019s been diligently thought through in terms of the process, whereby iwi M\u0101ori, whether they\u2019re Ng\u0101 Hap\u016B o Ng\u0101ti Porou or a post-settlement governance entity or other groupings with marine customary title, as those hap\u016B claimants that have got the titles and stuff\u2014it just makes it really difficult, coming from Tai Tokerau and knowing that, as iwi M\u0101ori, there\u2019s a certain level of fatigue that M\u0101ori groups do go through in terms of the churn of consultation. But also, again\u2014and I\u2019m just labouring the point\u2014that resourcing of the system to support iwi-M\u0101ori engagement and provide capacity and capability appears to be a gap. So I\u2019m just making a statement. Kia ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002288978fb9592a4911a8e47eae04d164f3\u0022 data-id=\u00224e39d69ddbad073374959b838643c97e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004689\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002288978fb9592a4911a8e47eae04d164f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224e39d69ddbad073374959b838643c97e\u0022\u003EDr VANESSA WEENINK (National\u2014Banks Peninsula) (21:02)\u003C/span\u003E: I move that debate on this question now close.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004690\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004691\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004692\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004693\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004694\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004695\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004696\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002247d41c9508ee2ed1d6825fee78bcac80\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s Part\u00A02 amendments to Amendment Paper 710 set out on Amendment Paper 752 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004697\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004698\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004699\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004700\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004701\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004702\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004703\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229eb004c2a805522a08f5d714a052d190\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Lan Pham\u2019s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 710 inserting new subparagraph (iia) in clause\u00A050(1)(a) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004704\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004705\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004706\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004707\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004709\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022940807c713eb311004f35ef4142ff907\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Lan Pham\u2019s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 710 deleting clause 50A(3) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004711\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004712\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004713\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004714\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004715\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004716\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004717\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f0567a333a9529966246ecd9c3d57b83\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Lan Pham\u2019s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 710 amending clause 50C(2) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004718\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004719\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004720\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004722\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments to the amendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004724\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224d24d699e5306af149162de21fd23ea1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Lan Pham\u2019s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 710 deleting clause 58A(3)(d) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004725\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004726\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004727\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004728\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004729\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004730\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004731\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b3321b561349cb484c9998e3ae05a119\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Lan Pham\u2019s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 710 amending clause 64(2) is out of order as not offering a serious alternative form of words.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004732\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Lan Pham\u2019s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 710 inserting new clause 65 regarding rules in action plans to remedy breaches be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004733\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004734\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004735\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004736\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004737\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004738\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004739\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e9e387957446cbde5a36c873354eaaf1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Lan Pham\u2019s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 710 inserting new clause 65 regarding avoiding breaches of environmental limits be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004740\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004741\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004742\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004743\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004744\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004745\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004746\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224de162e7b0db2d838693964ecc6da922\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 710 and the tabled amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004747\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004748\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004749\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004750\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004751\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004752\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004753\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c8090ef9f6075d4c415cedfa36abd2b2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendments to clause 11 set out on Amendment Paper 687 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004754\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u2019s amendment to clause 11(1) set out on Amendment Paper 670 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004755\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Lan Pham\u2019s amendment to clause 11(1)(a) set out on Amendment Paper 672 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004756\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004757\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004758\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004759\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004760\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004761\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004762\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d7ee636d5629a8a8bea39d5cbb4531d9\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Lan Pham\u2019s amendment to clause 11 inserting new paragraphs (g) and (h) set out on Amendment Paper 712 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004763\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004764\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004765\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004766\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004767\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004768\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004769\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022446f93715c9ba2c402711cd9dcfb2828\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Lan Pham\u2019s amendment to clause 11(1)(d) set out on Amendment Paper 669 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004770\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendment to clause 11(1)(d) set out on Amendment Paper 704 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004771\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u2019s amendment to replace clause 11(1)(d) set out on Amendment Paper 724 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004772\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Lan Pham\u2019s amendment inserting clause 11(2A) set out on Amendment Paper 711 be agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004773\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004774\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004775\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004776\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004777\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004778\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004779\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002297fcc3ef99895ce43e08405a33534892\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendment to clause 12(3) set out on Amendment Paper 745 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004780\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004781\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004782\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004783\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004784\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004785\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004786\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b698b0eff833dc1c28b7703f1e2e6ea3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendment deleting clause 13(1)(e) set out on Amendment Paper 698 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004787\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004788\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004789\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004790\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004791\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004792\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004793\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f110104fba41af065e44b227adf9492b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Lan Pham\u2019s amendment deleting clause 15A set out on Amendment Paper 722 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004794\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendment deleting clause 15A(a) set out on Amendment Paper 685 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004795\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004797\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004798\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004799\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004800\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004801\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ba45adb7264e801c850ef35d2af5c4e4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendment to clause 32(2)(a)(i) set out on Amendment Paper 706 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004802\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004803\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004804\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004805\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004806\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004807\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004808\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228de517ce2726fb8aafe0265cc53eaaff\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Lan Pham\u2019s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 681 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004809\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Lan Pham\u2019s amendment to clause 48(1)(c) set out on Amendment Paper 673 be agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004810\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004811\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004812\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004813\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004815\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004816\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002202debecf95711559d050aa1bf42342c6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Lan Pham\u2019s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 703 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004817\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u2019s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 674 to delete clauses 49A(3)(d), 50B(1)(c), and 57A are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004818\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Lan Pham\u2019s remaining amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 674 be agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004819\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004820\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004821\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004822\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004823\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004824\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004825\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229e0158d0c1ab4938c7ce0786779a5ee1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendment inserting clause 50(1AAA) set out on Amendment Paper 699 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004826\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004827\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004828\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004829\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004830\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004832\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d4fef2099f54210a614bb143c55d9760\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendment deleting clause 58A set out on Amendment Paper 753 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004833\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u2019s amendment deleting clause 64 set out on Amendment Paper 676 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004834\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u2019s amendments to clauses 64 and 65 set out on Amendment Paper 682 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004835\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Lan Pham\u2019s amendment inserting new clause 65A set out on Amendment Paper 684 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004836\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004837\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004838\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004839\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004840\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004841\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004842\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bcb270f204e63a2df5807049b410dc14\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Lan Pham\u2019s amendment to clause 71 set out on Amendment Paper 675 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004843\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u2019s amendments to clause 71 set out on Amendment Paper 723 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004844\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendment to clause 72 set out on Amendment Paper 744 be agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004845\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004846\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004847\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004848\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004849\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004850\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004851\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002238155d4736fab85f3b8b10129a644807\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Lan Pham\u2019s amendment to clause 74 set out on Amendment Paper 675 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004852\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004853\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004854\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004855\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004857\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004858\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c09d20778ef10be57308c838f573f380\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendment inserting new clause 75A set out on Amendment Paper 746 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004859\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004860\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004861\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004862\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004863\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004864\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004865\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a30459831932a552ee8a46f932343b26\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendment to clause 77(3)(a) set out on Amendment Paper 700 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004866\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u2019s amendments to clauses 78 and 79 set out on Amendment Paper 683 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004867\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendment deleting clause 79 set out on Amendment Paper 747 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004868\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Part 2 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004869\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004870\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004871\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004872\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004873\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004874\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00226bdbc6325b2a99a0284a975ce8f8b8c0\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004875\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022bf225c128e20180aa629e49c9644aaa5\u0022\u003EPart 3 Combined plan and other matters, and Schedules 3 to 5\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004876\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225c186df37f05f56493b16ea36f08206d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we now come to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 91 to 125\u2014\u201CCombined plan and other matters\u201D\u2014Schedule 3, \u201CCoastal matters\u201D; Schedule 4, \u201CWater conservation orders\u201D; and Schedule 5, \u201CFreshwater farm plans\u201D. The question is that Part 3 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u002219e8cc398d00a77f9f0a9ad6bf30e377\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004877\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002219e8cc398d00a77f9f0a9ad6bf30e377\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (21:28)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to ask the member in the chair, Simon Court, questions about clauses 95 and 96. These provisions are where councils have to start thinking about their inclusions of national rules in their plans, and what they can and can\u2019t include. Even sort of things that you might expect to be local choices are only available to councils where the national rules allow them to be local choices.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004878\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002267ec18cc02d4823c8d93b5e11062c7b0\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Did you say combined plans?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004879\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226aea446936cf8ca79b9570087997cda5\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, I\u2019m at 95\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004880\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226a3c114d4a27134c1b285ab95dce2912\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: 95, all right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004881\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220a5fa164ee641aa771447e43810626de\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014on page 105, and 96 on page 106. The first question I have is the meaning of \u201Cpreclude\u201D in the way that these work together. The word \u201Cpreclude\u201D seems to suggest a very, very high standard\u2014that the national rules have to actively say that local councils are precluded from including them. But it\u2019s possible, given that we don\u2019t have the words in front of us, that you might be able to read in when it\u2019s heavily implied that those things are precluded, that they would also be precluded.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004882\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI just want to get some clarity from the member. Is this meant to be?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004883\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIs that allowance there for regional councils\u2014where they\u2019re not allowed to include a rule, is a meant to be a very high standard, or is it meant to also include things which, given the context of the national rule, are also effectively banned?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004884\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also want to ask him about clause 95(3), where a regional council must not amend a standardised provision. This is particular question about where changing conditions mean that we\u2019ve got a new context like changing weather. The question here is around, say, in Auckland, where a plan change\u2014well, it was very difficult to make the change, actually, that was required, where hundreds of homes were affected by flooding and the council was required to carry through an upzoning provision. In doing so, though, that would have meant they were effectively upzoning land that needed to be downzoned because of the flooding.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004885\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo my question to him is about: what happens when things change and a council needs to make a change to what would have been a standardised provision but say, weather has changed? There is a provision for natural hazards to be recognised. But in the situation where, in Auckland, say, it wasn\u2019t necessarily that there had been one flood or that there had been hazardous flooding, it was that there was a pattern of events which suggested that new information was available and now those houses were in places where they should not have been, but an upzone was occurring at the same time, where a council would have been held to a standard where there would have been more building in those areas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004886\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOn clause 96 itself, this is a pretty significant change in the philosophy at the regional rule level. Regional rule-making in this bill compared to the Resource Management Act is one where everything was permitted for the regional plan to be made unless there was an express provision that it couldn\u2019t be included; now, it\u2019s the other way around.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004887\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo I want to ask, Amendment Paper 710 actually seems to pretty significantly\u2014it softens what was initially introduced in the bill, and there have been some changes at the Environment Committee stage around exactly that, that this was very restrictive in a way that would have meant regional councils had to change their internal processes quite a lot. I just want to ask the member to explain, now, how that change from one philosophy to another will work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004888\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally\u2014no, I\u2019ll leave it there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00225211dc952d896cea04fa8ce50dc03c10\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225211dc952d896cea04fa8ce50dc03c10\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (21:32)\u003C/span\u003E: This provision is very clear. It requires councils to included standardised plan provisions\u2014clause 95\u2014in the initial environment plans as directed by national instruments. Clause 96 allows councils to include bespoke plan provisions in their national natural environment plans only if this is authorised or not precluded by a national instrument This is akin to the way national environmental standards under the Resource Management Act apply to plan making.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00220eebcb5cb5f89b937d7156ddf5e2caa3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004890\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220eebcb5cb5f89b937d7156ddf5e2caa3\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (21:33)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Maybe just to help with that conversation, when the member in the chair, Simon Court, says, \u201Cakin to how things are made under Resource Management Act\u201D, that\u2019s in reference to regional council plans\u2014in terms of that the onus is different for if you\u2019re getting a discharge consent, then the assumption is that it\u2019s not permitted unless a plan rule says its permitted; whereas for a land-use consent, so something you get under the district council, then the presumption is it is permitted unless the plan says resource consent is required. My understanding is that this scheme doesn\u2019t change that presumption. But the member in the chair can clarify that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004891\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy question is on clause 97, which is \u201CCore obligations when preparing and deciding natural environmental plan\u201D. There\u2019s a range of things to have regard to when a plan is being applied. One of those things is a plan relating to adapting to the effects of climate change prepared by the local authority. That is a good thing to be included there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004892\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI have Amendment Paper 685 that would include another thing to have regard to, and that is: \u201Cany emissions reduction plan prepared under the Climate Change Response Act\u201D. So we\u2019ve heard the member in the chair say a number of times, \u201CWell, we don\u2019t have to think about climate change pollution at all because the emissions trading scheme does it all\u201D, but of course that is not how the policy settings in New Zealand work. One of the things we have under the Climate Change Response Act is an emissions reduction plan. So it would be a good thing for the councils to have regard to when preparing their documents. And of course, I have had other Amendment Papers that have, sadly, been voted down that would give some more weight to the consideration of planning to avoid climate pollution.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00225912f28b99963a8890090c85f79d9351\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225912f28b99963a8890090c85f79d9351\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (21:35)\u003C/span\u003E: This provision relates to regional councils. I\u2019ll answer the member the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s question about clause 97(4)(c) \u201Chave regard to \u2026 \u2014(v) any plan relating to adapting to the effects of climate change prepared by a local authority;\u201D. The legislation specifically excludes consideration of the adverse effects of greenhouse gas. It\u2019s clear. Those matters are managed under the climate change response Act provided for with prices on carbon under the emissions trading scheme.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022c9251147a7027bbbcf6616ecc6155361\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004894\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c9251147a7027bbbcf6616ecc6155361\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (21:36)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question on clause 97 is 97(4)(c). This requires the authority to have regard to considerations of the coastal marine area. In clause 97(4)(c)(iv) here, there\u2019s a useful inclusion of any regulations of bylaws\u2014and presumably the primary legislation as well\u2014of Acts which deal with M\u0101ori fishery rights. That\u2019s great. That is a great inclusion. Why has the member not also included the same inclusion for rights over land? Because the rights that are associated with the coastal marine area that are M\u0101ori rights don\u2019t seem to be different in nature than the rights over land that are M\u0101ori rights. But there\u2019s no similar provision for, say, Acts and regulations which set out mahinga kai on land, for instance. That seems to be a non-deliberate overlooking of something which would have been good to include.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u002251d3f9af0cf374a93eb66a91f6a3644a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004895\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002251d3f9af0cf374a93eb66a91f6a3644a\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (21:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Really pleased to start with Part 3, noting the Chair\u2019s desire that we\u2019re simply just moving through the bill, and I intend to do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004896\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fe0cbdbe614b9ce869597ba4de4bb200\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: And not making speeches as well. It\u2019s purely targeted to the members for response.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004897\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022926f0fa8d4a886096341e910e565571c\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM\u003C/span\u003E: Absolutely, Madam Chair, as I have been through the period so far.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004898\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EParticularly on clause 97\u2014these are about the core obligations when preparing and deciding a natural environment plan. Firstly, I have a question for the member Simon Court about, essentially, the test that \u201Cthe regional council is satisfied that\u2014\u201D, or the council, because it may be unitary. They do not have to meet the provision in the regional spatial plan if they\u2019re \u201Csatisfied that\u2014\u201D. It talks about a significant change in circumstances. They say, \u201C(for example, a major environmental or economic event.)\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004899\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy question, firstly, for the member is: what is anticipated to be covered or consider as a \u201Cmajor environmental or economic event\u201D? I think the reason why it\u2019s really important that we get some clarity on this is because we know that, increasingly, it\u2019s weekly, rather than monthly or yearly, where we are having significant major events when it comes to climate impacts. I\u2019m interested as to whether there has been thought given to the fact that these events are increasing in nature, and what kind of threshold changes would constitute a significant event. So that\u2019s my first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004900\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy second question is around those core obligations and relates to an Amendment Paper 726 that I have. Really, that\u2019s about proposing, under clause 97(2)(a)(ii), that there\u2019s an additional consideration which directions regional council decision-making when they\u2019re setting their natural environment plan. That is around them having to have regard to \u201Cany emissions reduction plan prepared under section 5ZG of the Climate Change Response Act;\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004901\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, why that is absolutely critical, and why I would really appreciate the member\u2019s response to this suggestion, is that we know that a functional resource management system in 2026 should coherently talk to our climate change legislation. This is the bill the Government has consistently said is going to do the heavy lifting when it comes to emissions reductions and our response to climate change. It would make absolute sense\u2014and we heard through a number of submitters throughout the entire process\u2014that both the natural environment plans and the regional spatial plans should have these considerations. I\u2019m really keen to hear the member\u2019s response to that specifically. Thank you, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00222e9b244f1ac05a5d7a7ef5b7dfa412ed\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004902\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222e9b244f1ac05a5d7a7ef5b7dfa412ed\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (21:41)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019ll just respond to Arena Williams\u2019 question around clause 97(4)(c)(i). If I understood the question correctly\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004903\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b1cb5cc6e38f216eb52173905b6110f0\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Why isn\u2019t it on land?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004904\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d8f9cb31636c4db5428cb7ccc7a20e4f\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: Can the member just please clarify? I wouldn\u2019t consider it heckling.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004905\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002230008b8a74cace9da5a7afb1eb7b5f39\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Why isn\u2019t it on land as well?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004906\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224ba3cbf4dc47ccccefc61498acae558c\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: Why isn\u2019t the provision on 97(4)(c)(i) on land as well? There is an equivalent clause, I\u2019ve been advised, in the Planning Bill which applies to land.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004907\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMadam Chair, if I may just answer Lan Pham\u2019s question. In clause 97(3)(b), there is an example given about what a significant change in circumstances might be. That example is given as \u201Ca major environmental or economic event\u201D. That stands. It\u2019s clear. The clause provides for councils to respond in their plan to those matters, which is also a matter that Arena Williams raised in relation to Auckland floods. It\u2019s important that councils have the ability to respond to a change in circumstances.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022140f0d4ba35152c123af8c83f0b9f653\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004908\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022140f0d4ba35152c123af8c83f0b9f653\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (21:42)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I take that last answer as that regional councils would have the ability to change the standardised rules if\u2014yeah? OK, that\u2019s great.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004909\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 101 on page 109 is where I am. I\u2019ve just listened to the member in the chair, Simon Court, answer that there is an equivalent provision in the Planning Bill to do with those land covenants that are in other Acts, but that doesn\u2019t seem to apply to mahinga kai that is on land that is not in coastal areas. So when I ask about 101, it\u2019s with that in mind.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe plan can\u2019t allow an activity which will have an adverse effect on the coastal marine area where it\u2019s protected for the gathering of shellfish or other kai\u2014that\u2019s great\u2014where it\u2019s a protected area under the takutai moana Act. I\u2019m not arguing for a land-based similar clause. I\u2019m arguing for the one piece of legislation which is exactly like Ng\u0101 Hap\u016B o Ng\u0101ti Porou, which is the Titi Islands legislation 1978. That piece of legislation has its genesis from the deed of cession of Stewart Island in 1868. The reason that legislation is important is that a plan that allowed an activity which affected the titi on those islands would amount to the same sort of breach which is being prevented by this clause here. Clause 101 prevents an activity which would have an effect on the gathering of kai in the coastal area\u2014same as those Titi Islands.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004911\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESome of these coastal areas that are protected under Ng\u0101 Hap\u016B o Ng\u0101ti Porou\u2019s Act are exactly the same kind of rocky outcrop formations that the islands adjacent to Stewart Island and Ruapuke are. They\u2019re exactly the same sorts of islands with the same sorts of kai, but we\u2019re talking about birds in the Titi Islands sense. So why is it OK that a plan in the south of the South Island can allow a permitted activity which will impact on the ability of gathering of a traditional food source, but for the hap\u016B o Ng\u0101ti Porou, it will not? But there are only two pieces of legislation like that\u2014it\u2019s not like there are tonnes. Just include this one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002273b5a371af547e3419847df9b9e1af93\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004912\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002273b5a371af547e3419847df9b9e1af93\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (21:45)\u003C/span\u003E: The matters that the member Arena Williams\u2019 sought clarification on\u2014on mahinga kai on land\u2014are covered in the Planning Bill. I answered that in a previous answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004913\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn response to the member\u2019s question about Titi Islands legislation, it\u2019s not actually connected to the planning regime in the way customary fishing regulations are.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022 data-id=\u00222ad7246c1e942cd1916674a204a4f5af\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004914\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222ad7246c1e942cd1916674a204a4f5af\u0022\u003EVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (21:45)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m actually just going to ask a question on the same clause, but it\u2019s a different issue. This is clause 101(1), which says, \u201CA natural environment plan or a proposed natural environment plan must not include a rule that classifies an activity as a permitted activity if that activity will, or is likely to, have an adverse effect that is more than minor\u201D. So it does allow those minor impacts, and I understand that that\u2019s a cross-reference to the specific wording within the Marine and Coastal Areas (Takutai Moana) Act as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMy question is: what happens if there is initially a minor effect, but then that impact on the area increases and has a more detrimental impact; whether there\u2019s a point of intervention? This applies to clause 101 and it\u2019s repeated in clause 103 as well, which references minor impact. To my mind, I would read back into clause 94A and potentially see an independent hearing panel being able to be triggered at that stage. The reason I see that is because the options available to a group who are wishing for their customary rights to be protected are in clause 102, but that could take a considerable amount of time. In the circumstances I\u2019ve described, we\u2019ve got something that was initially minor, it\u2019s now escalating in terms of its impact. You would want something triggered that allows a speedier resolution. So just whether I\u2019m correct in terms of that being the pathway for someone in those circumstances.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022 data-id=\u0022b7bd151a99d954d634cc195a2f0a289d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004916\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b7bd151a99d954d634cc195a2f0a289d\u0022\u003EORIINI KAIPARA (Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori\u2014T\u0101maki Makaurau) (21:47)\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003ET\u0113n\u0101 koe\u003C/span\u003E, Madam Chair. With respect to clause 114, Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori is really glad to see that the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act is being upheld in some capacity by the system. But we just want to confirm with the member in the chair, Simon Court, that this bill does not directly or indirectly alter any aspects of the fisheries settlement. I asked the Minister, actually, if this clause is sufficient to preserve the fisheries settlement in its entirety. It\u2019s the first question there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004917\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut when looking at the list of Treaty settlements, it would be remiss of me not to ask the member in the chair to please explain why other clauses to uphold settlements were not explicitly outlined in the original bill such as Te Ture Whaimana.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004918\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAre there any other Treaty settlements that will be breached by this bill in its current form? Are there any potential breaches that could be enabled by this bill? Those are my questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022928e42e6f6ea63452be981b4bbe74a31\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004919\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022928e42e6f6ea63452be981b4bbe74a31\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (21:48)\u003C/span\u003E: In response to Vanushi Walters\u2019 question around \u201Ca plan must not permit an activity that has certain effects on protected customary rights\u201D: yes. If an activity changes so that the impact is more than minor, then this clause would be triggered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004920\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn response to the member Oriini Kaipara\u2019s question, this provision that she referred to aligns with the Marine and Coastal Areas (Takutai Moana) Act. For the absence of any doubt whatsoever: the Government intends to uphold Treaty settlements to the greatest extent possible. There are provisions in Part 1 which set out the Crown\u2019s intent. And no, we do not anticipate any Treaty breaches as a result of fulfilling the Crown\u2019s obligations and achieving our intention.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022 data-id=\u0022a91efdd5e7fcf7c907a4cf8a451dfd25\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004921\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a91efdd5e7fcf7c907a4cf8a451dfd25\u0022\u003EVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (21:49)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just confirming with the Minister: my question was about what happens when the impact changes\u2014so it\u2019s initially minor and then the impact changes. I assume that that answer means that then the plan would need to change or that the panel would convene because there had been a change in the circumstances. No need to reply if that\u2019s the case on that one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004922\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust looking at clause 99 as well\u2014which I wanted to ask first, but I wanted to piggyback off Arena Williams\u2019 earlier question, which is why I went to clause 101. This says in clause 99(2)(b) a rule that allocates a natural resource use of activity \u201Cmay allocate the natural resource in anticipation of the expiry of an existing permit:\u201D. So my question is whether we could have a situation where a permit is extended, or for any other reason exceeds the period that we thought it would be in force for, causing complications in terms of any pre-emptive allocation. That was the first one. Let me see if I can find my second.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004923\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other question I had was in relation to clause 103B. So this is the rules to protect other property from the effects of surface water. It specifies in subsection (1) that this applies for the purpose of protecting other property from the effects of surface water requirements. So I\u2019m just curious about whether that is true for the property itself. So whether there can be more, higher performance criteria than the building code applied because the property itself would have water damage caused to it if it were only to comply with the building code. So just those two.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002299d8f634d93453c4f1c94b9a4e55a622\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004924\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002299d8f634d93453c4f1c94b9a4e55a622\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (21:51)\u003C/span\u003E: In response to the member Vanushi Walters\u2019 questions around rules that may allocate a natural resource, it\u2019s set out very clearly, in clause 99(2), that if there\u2019s an existing allocation to an existing permit, the rule that allocates that resource, or that resource use activity, cannot allocate that same resource associated with that existing permit\u2014that would not be fair on the existing permit holder\u2014but may allocate the natural resource in anticipation of the expiry of an existing permit. That might be helpful when a permit holder is seeking renewal, or not continuing an activity, to be able to reallocate in anticipation of the expiry, rather than having a process where there\u2019s a gap in the use of that resource.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf we just jump down to clause 99(2)(ca), \u201Cmay allocate the natural resource to no type of activity:\u201D\u2014which, for the members\u2019 benefit, particularly for those members who\u2019ve been asking questions around the environment, means allocate resource to the environment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004926\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn response to the member\u2019s question, yes, the legislation does provide for rules to be made which create a higher test or a more strict condition than the building code, and that is likely to be in relation to natural hazards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022 data-id=\u0022b54923009fdf675e27519aa4ec4804ae\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004927\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b54923009fdf675e27519aa4ec4804ae\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON (Green) (21:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Kia ora, Madam Chair, thank you very much. I want to continue to examine clause 97 of Part 3.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004928\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c029c6f1cccce13cabe52294201894ba\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, can you repeat that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004929\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222f5dfe23aca42b0b4b0b7cc696e4aee5\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON\u003C/span\u003E: Page 106, clause 97.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004930\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002213082896c409f672a62abb0ae8331672\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: No, we\u2019re not going backwards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004931\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c70afbb517b78a72ca93bc802836b773\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON\u003C/span\u003E: No, I\u2019m not. I\u2019m explaining what part of it I\u2019m going into. I\u2019m wanting to discuss clause 97(4) and going over to (b), (c), (d), and (e)\u2014about all the M\u0101ori stuff\u2014in clause 97. I\u2019m not going backwards because we haven\u2019t fully examined clause 97 yet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004932\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fffff47c4dbb05fc6030f213339ae9c9\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Clause 97 is before clause 101.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004933\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022161f275e404c79ccd457c99381fb4283\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, all of that. So from clause 97(4)\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004934\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a7a6d13710e239f8a07f31c2e176a7b0\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: You\u2019re missing my point, member.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022677e9a28c8e0e214048c9b9f1065188b\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. I acknowledge that we\u2019ve been trying to move through, but, of course, there\u2019s people in different places asking different questions, so it\u2019s going to be impossible for us to sequence perfectly clause by clause. We\u2019ve been doing subparts and saying when people are moving on to subparts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004936\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022003ad19b2dbd95647d1276a16d7187cd\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I understand what you\u2019re saying, but we\u2019ve spent five hours on one part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004937\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222338accf39ba533c00ae4a46e3cadc32\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019re on a different part now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004938\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f0b5f4f78d5f5a759fce276c5721d4c5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I know. And we\u2019re not going to spend five hours on this one, I can tell.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004939\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cf26d5c7cefb50677fe551e8a405de21\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. We\u2019re really happy to move through sequentially so that we\u2019re not going back\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004940\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226ead2cc411bb04a3076534a4d2a8b635\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s your point of order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004941\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bf52c4723613e4404aa1d66b48a0001a\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m trying to speak to the\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004942\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022efad7c2a0284b69f5d490b98609b884a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: There\u2019s no need. If the member has some new material to raise on that clause, go ahead. But we are not going backwards, OK. So raise your new material.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004943\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b68a7e39e9b7adf931e2cc9b4a412954\u0022\u003ERicardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004944\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002280bfce36b5f3b595ae93b4dc5a116fce\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Are you going to challenge?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004945\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002221b5dc04b5ef5a8c3ddc2f76d5d6f9a9\u0022\u003ERicardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u003C/span\u003E: No, I\u2019m seeking your guidance\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004946\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a46b3a896839563d743b407b52c27fc7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order, Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004947\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002223826dac5365150773f3e7e128ef9be1\u0022\u003ERicardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u003C/span\u003E: So this quite a new introduction of guidance of like the moving\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004948\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f51cacf8a90d729f09b0026099c0a3e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: No, it\u2019s not. Sit down please, Mr\u2014sit down Mr March. Sit down.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004949\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227f000fc7c80330a88fbc6ef62847a2a8\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON\u003C/span\u003E: The parts of this clause that I want to examine which have not been spoken to yet by the member in the chair, Simon Court, is in relation to clause 97(4), head over to the page on page 107, where I want to talk about (b), (c), (d), and (e). All of these areas have not been discussed by anybody to date.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004950\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d64b326ef41d22daf76f161063e515b6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Clause 97(4) and (c) have been debated about 20 minutes ago.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004951\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022893376ddc1338fdc52467f211a4a30d6\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON\u003C/span\u003E: No, no. We want to examine\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004952\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224ce28fb02f0f876b7ca675ef2bf42bee\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: OK. Go ahead. Quickly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004953\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b859ea24210d68a6466ca0a3a29022be\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. So in terms of the way with which iwi M\u0101ori who have statutory acknowledgments, who may have m\u0101taitai or non-commercial M\u0101ori customary fishing interests, and also the marine coastal area\u2014MACA\u2014Ng\u0101 Hap\u016B o Ng\u0101ti Porou, we understand that the Minister or the regional council must take into account\u2014\u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Ekia aroha mai\u003C/span\u003E [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003Emy apologies\u003C/span\u003E], I lost my train of thought because of the raru\u2014take into account matters relating to their input. So these are M\u0101ori groups with interest in these areas for local regional council to take into account their feedback, and other relevant groups. If we flip over to page 108, it also says that they are to \u201Ctake into account the matters in the environmental covenant, to the extent that they relate to the part of the common marine and coastal area of the customary marine title area\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004954\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ESo what I\u2019m asking of the member in the seat is \u201Ctaking into account\u201D is written in the legislation, but what does that tangibly mean for councils in terms of the direction of travel that they are required to engage with iwi M\u0101ori? Is it meaningful enough or is this a paper-based desktop exercise? Is there like a hierarchy in terms of setting out how regional councils need to engage with these different iwi groups? It\u2019s really good the way that it\u2019s set out: it\u2019s choice. We can see that there are different groups that are required to be engaged with, but it\u2019s the taking into account that I want to unpack with the member in the seat. What does that look like? What are the expectations? I can\u2019t see a hierarchy in terms of what that tangibly means in practice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004955\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002233843bb746b0ffac99e9424831199e89\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The member can answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022711e0b9703accbc8430f227a27fd7be4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004956\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022711e0b9703accbc8430f227a27fd7be4\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (21:58)\u003C/span\u003E: \u201CTake into account\u201D is a well-understood legal term. The member H\u016Bhana Lyndon will find it throughout this legislation. It was commonly used in the Resource Management Act. I do acknowledge the member seeing that we have tried to be as particular as possible in the way that this is set out so that we provide for rights and interests.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022408d6e1b5a44ab5667cb5c282f775cdf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004957\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022408d6e1b5a44ab5667cb5c282f775cdf\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (21:58)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m interested in the adaptive management incentives. I\u2019m going to ask the member a question that I don\u2019t think he will be surprised about, about Sustain Our Sounds. So I\u2019m on page 111. Clause 104 is the first part of this, but it also relates to clause 167.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004958\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EFirst: is the existing case law on adaptive management plans still meant to apply? I think that it does. So I want to ask him whether it\u2019s still the case that clause 104 cannot lawfully be used where the environmental effects being monitored may become irreversible before the adaptive management trigger can operate. Essentially, the principal in Sustain our Sounds\u2014for anyone who doesn\u2019t know; I\u2019ll just be quick\u2014is that you can\u2019t use adaptive management in a plan if the monitoring will show you a result once the harm has already irreversibly been done.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00220aa89650acee99958f751c48d104c790\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220aa89650acee99958f751c48d104c790\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (21:59)\u003C/span\u003E: The adaptive management criteria here are set out clearly. The member Arena Williams\u2019 question was: does existing jurisprudence and case law continue to apply? My expectation is it will apply as far as it continues to be, or matters that came up are relevant or outcomes are, within the scope of this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u00229ed6f30b3c1f0879cdc516674d70874e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004960\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229ed6f30b3c1f0879cdc516674d70874e\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (21:59)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I think that does require a change. I think what the member Simon Court has said\u2014and he can correct me if I\u2019m wrong\u2014is that you can use an adaptive management plan if you have a monitoring mechanism which will indicate harm after it has been done, but you have to also fulfil the rest of the criteria which is set out in that section. I guess the problem with that, in say the case of the Sounds, was that once you have damage to a coastal area and a marine ecosystem, it is very hard to adapt over time to those adverse effects.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004961\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EHe\u2019s got some adverse effects conditions here and I\u2019m sure that they will be dealt with in the plans; even, you know, having a plan in the challenger area which sets bespoke provisions is allowed, but the question is, really, that these are, on the face of it, unlawful in the situation of, say, a salmon farm. They might be lawful in other situations, but I think what he\u2019s told me is that they are lawful even in a salmon farm case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022381240dd0fa042863a5fe88124fbb59a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004962\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022381240dd0fa042863a5fe88124fbb59a\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:01)\u003C/span\u003E: No, I\u2019ll just clarify for the member Arena Williams: it can be any kind of harm that can then trigger the need for adaptive management.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u002241784274eae387ab10d0a6d9a87bebfb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004963\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002241784274eae387ab10d0a6d9a87bebfb\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (22:01)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Moving directly to my Amendment Paper 677. This is a topic that I haven\u2019t got to at all; it\u2019s new topic because it\u2019s to do with core obligations when preparing and deciding natural environment plans. I\u2019ve had a previous Amendment Paper on this, on a different subject. This one is about the necessity that the core obligations, when preparing and deciding a natural environment plan\u2014that the regional council actually ensure that none of those provisions are conflicting with an environmental limit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004964\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019m really interested in the member Simon Court\u2019s thoughts around this and commentary around this, because, presumably, the key thing that we want to achieve when it comes to natural environment plans is some improvement in environmental limits, noting that those limits have already been set, not on an environmental basis, but with the community\u2019s social and economic needs. Therefore, given that they are already in a compromised state, would it be worthwhile\u2014from the member and his Government\u2014to actually put it as a core obligation that that will be a key consideration when it comes to the setting of those plans? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022346b8bac5e01e17c19d79b5f84998b8b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004965\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022346b8bac5e01e17c19d79b5f84998b8b\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:02)\u003C/span\u003E: In response to the member Lan Pham, in relation to her Amendment Paper 677: there are already sufficient safeguards to ensure decisions in a regional spatial plan do not breach limits. For example, clause 97(2)(a) requires a regional council to comply with the environmental limits when preparing the natural environment plan. Clause 60B requires councils to take all reasonable steps to avoid breaching environmental limits; 50B(3), limits\u2014you only have to have \u201Cregard to the regional spatial plan\u201D rather than implement. This allows flexibility to ensure that the natural environment plan implements a spatial plan, but could do this in line with the obligation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004966\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe natural environment plan in clause 97(3) doesn\u2019t have to implement regional spatial plan if new information supersedes the information used for the regional spatial plan or if there\u2019s a major event. I thank the member for her consideration, for the amendment, but we won\u2019t be proceeding with that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022e7bf8d6fd0d05f5bb53891e33036a4f1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004967\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e7bf8d6fd0d05f5bb53891e33036a4f1\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (22:04)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m going to move to\u2014but noting that other people might not have moved to where I\u2019m moving to quite yet\u2014clause 111; that\u2019s an exciting number to say, isn\u2019t it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004968\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d52c571cdb246f6abf50a39de1a66f7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e11785828ad35d8e51ddb7b24c09528b\u0022\u003EGlen Bennett\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s an emergency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004969\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e22a2b1546fae919c1e4e4c0e3389141\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: It is an emergency, Glen Bennett. We\u2019re in an emergency with 111 because this is\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004970\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022573ef6fbdaef350c24741e4a98c473c9\u0022\u003EHon Members: \u003C/span\u003ERegulatory relief.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004971\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ad7523b985f23873a50307351565047b\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014regulatory relief; and boo! Tonight, Madam Chair\u2014and you were in the chair last night when I had a similar amendment paper on a different bill\u2014I have Amendment Paper 666, and I\u2019m quite excited about that. It is just so apt that it is on this clause.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004972\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022742f1bb24eb6ab3071d8c9e3aa9493d0\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003ESection of the beast!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004973\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225fd7d58cdbd2a4759357f6b5099d0058\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s right. Regulatory relief even becomes more important after tonight\u2019s conversations about environmental limits and how, whilst there are health limits, the environmental limits could be nothing because of these regulatory relief provisions and other costings and economic factors that are coming in. So this is your chance, member Court. This is your chance to do the right thing, to say yes to 666.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00221db784127943b1967dc73af3edfd7972\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004974\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221db784127943b1967dc73af3edfd7972\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:05)\u003C/span\u003E: I feel that the member has some insights into my Spotify playlist. However, the Government will not be accepting the member\u2019s amendment to remove regulatory relief from the system. I made the case very clearly last night when clarifying the intention of regulatory relief. It is possible, and it is intended, that if councils seek to impose controls on private property in relation to indigenous biodiversity under the Natural Environment Bill\u2014soon to be Act, touch wood\u2014they will be able to, but they will not be able to do it without confronting the costs of any proposed application of the planning rule in relation to indigenous biodiversity that impacts the property owner, above the threshold provided for in legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u0022830fd0ae2b8052fff4c6dd8f079949a8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022830fd0ae2b8052fff4c6dd8f079949a8\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (22:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m really keen to pick up on regulatory relief, and particularly noting the previous Chairs last night, when we were on the Planning Bill, advised to save all of our natural environment - related questions and content on regulatory relief for this bill, so I just want to flag that because it is in Schedule 3 of the Planning Bill, but the implications of it are very clear throughout there, and the Chair made that really clear that we would draw that line and move that part of the debate into this bill, so that\u2019s where I\u2019m moving to now. Thank you, Madam Chair, and that\u2019s in response to being on clause 111 of Part 3.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004976\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPicking up from where we were, moving into the indigenous biodiversity aspects of the regulatory relief, what I\u2019m really interested to hear from the member is the very little information that we had at the Environment Committee about regulatory relief was this extremely wide\u2014and, actually, the report itself made it clear that it was sort of like putting your finger in the air and making up a number. But the number that they arrived at when they looked at what regulatory relief might actually cost councils, and therefore ratepayers, was in the realm of $2 billion. What I\u2019m really interested to understand is whether the member and the Government have any more detailed information that they can share with councils and the public tonight about the aspect of that regulatory relief cost when it comes to the protection or otherwise of indigenous biodiversity. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004977\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m really interested in that particularly, because I understand from the provisions in this bill that there is no ability, for example, to put in place general vegetation rules\u2014clearance rules around vegetation. What that means is that there\u2019s a really high bar, now, when it comes to significant areas of biodiversity. When you\u2019re below that and you basically\u2014the biodiversity is essentially invisible. What I\u2019d love to understand is if the Minister has more detailed responses about the cost to communities when we so clearly heard\u2014particularly from councils across the board, but particularly those smaller councils like Waitaki or MacKenzie\u2014that they will be unable to put in adequate protections that protect the biodiversity in their council area. So I really invite comments from the member. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022808196e4d3385d84b1e81866eb29b905\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004978\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022808196e4d3385d84b1e81866eb29b905\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:09)\u003C/span\u003E: Firstly, I\u2019m absolutely stoked that the member Lan Pham is picking up regulatory relief. Excellent, we\u2019re making great progress. But I\u2019m concerned that the member might seek, through the planning system or environmental protection system, to protect invisible biodiversity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004979\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI mean there may be microbes\u2014we did get into algae at one point. But let\u2019s be clear, the purpose of regulatory relief is when councils identify indigenous biodiversity that meets the threshold warranting consideration for protection on private property, that they will carry out an assessment. And if that assessment shows that there\u2019s an impact on the use of that private property, which exceeds the threshold, which might trigger a regulatory relief conversation, they can first offer the private property owner the ability to receive that protection, that planning protection, voluntarily for no exchange of money or any other relief. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004980\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBecause there are some people who say, \u201CYou know what? That patch of bush at the bottom of the farm that we\u2019ve fenced off, if you\u2019ve identified that as significant indigenous biodiversity that needs to be protected, we\u2019re happy to accept that protection.\u201D Some people might say, \u201CWell, I was going to put it into a QEII covenant, but if I can achieve the same level of protection with a planning control, and it sits there on my property, that\u2019s fine.\u201D But as I explained extensively last night, the purpose of the regulatory relief approach is that councils that seek to impose these controls on private property are forced to, firstly, test themselves as to whether it\u2019s really necessary and meets the significance test. These matters will be set down in regulations and there will be national standards around these matters. And if it meets the threshold, then there will be a process where councils can go through and, potentially, in exchange for protection of what they consider important public value and private property, they will be able to offer the property owner where that protection impacts their property in a way that triggers regulatory relief mechanism\u2014rates relief, cash, additional development opportunities, another part of the property, or additional development opportunities on another property that that owner owns. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004981\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll come to the member\u2019s question. Essentially the member brought the MartinJenkins report into the debate, which estimated the potential cost of regulatory relief to council somewhere between $7 million and $2 billion. And look, I mean, some reports are really valuable, and the value in this report that shows you that there\u2019s not a lot of people who understand how the system works. Minister Bishop and I have been very clear how the system works. I explained it in detail last night and there are many who have told me, over many years, since I began the work of developing the concepts and the policy that now has led to the development of this legislation we\u2019re talking about today, time and time again, that protections like significant natural areas have been applied to private property in a way that impacts people\u2019s ability to use their land at no cost, and if no tension against what the council might seek to impose. So for the first time in New Zealand history, in fact, for the first time that we know of, a system is going to be applied that puts a referee on the field\u2014a test councils have to pass. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004982\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, many have asked, \u201CWell, if it\u2019s so novel, how do you know how it\u2019s going to work?\u201D Well, there is actually something that\u2019s not too different; it\u2019s called the Public Works Act. When, if a designating entity seeks to take land or restrict the use of land for a purpose, the landowner is entitled to compensation. That\u2019s not a novel concept. It\u2019s the first time it\u2019s been done in resource management. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004983\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo for the member\u2019s benefit and the benefits of the committee\u2014I explained this in great detail last night\u2014this provision refers to Part 4, Schedule 3 of the Planning Act 2025. I\u2019ve been over it in detail. I\u2019m happy to clarify a few matters, but we covered it extensively last night. The provision that this applies to in the Natural Environment Bill\u2014there is only one matter\u2014is significant indigenous biodiversity. So I\u2019m happy to take further questions, but probably not a lot more content I can add. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u002262bc4536d45e3488d44ad95df4fd0f35\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002262bc4536d45e3488d44ad95df4fd0f35\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (22:14)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just on that point about the regulatory relief\u2014my question is brief. It\u2019s about the incentives for council to find any way that they can to make the sorts of changes that they need to protect ecosystems and biodiversity without using the biodiversity limb here because the member in the chair has given two ways for councils to, effectively, protect different sorts of animals, wildlife. One is by the system inputs, say water quality, say ecosystem protections, which don\u2019t attract regulatory relief, or the system measurables, e.g. the number of eels, which does attract regulatory relief. So won\u2019t we just see councils using the ecosystem protections which don\u2019t attract regulatory relief to actually get the outcomes that they need?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004985\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve got one more.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022d6cb01cfb7f4b9872ae6d9dbe2222d77\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004986\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d6cb01cfb7f4b9872ae6d9dbe2222d77\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:15)\u003C/span\u003E: How might councils protect indigenous biodiversity? They could make a park\u2014this is outside the scope of this legislation by the way\u2014they could turn a park into a forest; they could use their budget to make an appropriation and a long term plan to make an investment in public values of indigenous biodiversity. But what they won\u2019t be able to do, without being confronted with a regulatory relief provision, is apply these controls to achieve public values on private property.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u00225f72292e98d449d89d02fc4f5cb5fa6a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004987\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225f72292e98d449d89d02fc4f5cb5fa6a\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (22:16)\u003C/span\u003E: The other question that I had, twigged by the member in the chair, talking about those cash payments. Is that also part of the incentives regime? At clause 105, you\u2019ve introduced what is a pretty novel, I think good, introduction to the Resource Management Act, which isn\u2019t a feature of our planning law or the planning law of other countries.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004988\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIncentives make sense in the system, but I\u2019m assuming that those won\u2019t be cash payments, because a local authority distributing ratepayers money to system users does seem to be over and above what the normal function of public power would be\u2014redistributing rates to other ratepayers in the form of a cash payment like that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022802bbc4ad2b11d9f298e383d4133c4ce\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004989\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022802bbc4ad2b11d9f298e383d4133c4ce\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:16)\u003C/span\u003E: In answer to that question: how would I, standing here tonight, anticipate incentives? Look, this is important\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004990\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dceb0f3a96633b83f4cfa529e6eefad6\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s just about the cash.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004991\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228f885c1991e77404cc3f1966e7a77eff\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: Cash, potentially\u2014but let\u2019s be clear, natural environment plan might provide an incentive for a landowner trying to take an activity. Look, I\u2019ve described additional development opportunities that may be available in exchange for voluntarily agreeing to, say, fence off or protect a piece of land that has indigenous biodiversity values on it. All of these matters are available to councils.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022 data-id=\u0022aa847bed1b88ade45024ccaad0ecf9eb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004992\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022aa847bed1b88ade45024ccaad0ecf9eb\u0022\u003ECATHERINE WEDD (National\u2014Tukituki) (22:17)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004993\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002210ad616d63b81238754076a1c9a31734\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m just going to check if there are questions about aquaculture or joint plans.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004994\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228839ea02cf10c1fc2d721019eb4da88c\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I\u2019ve got questions on clauses 128, \u201CWildlife approvals\u201D, and also\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004995\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d9929876ea48f3287fde923600b79e2a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: OK, there\u2019s a little bit left to go.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004996\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a282887f12349f10b511a114a1a3952e\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014schedules; there\u2019s a number of schedules as well. I don\u2019t have many questions on them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004997\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228241683b276d848e71ace9473c1c8651\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Rachel Brooking.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u0022ad296ada92f0485a2f9262c5e38a515c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004998\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ad296ada92f0485a2f9262c5e38a515c\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (22:17)\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Madam Chair. Can I please clarify the advice that was given to us, from the chair last night, that we would have a fulsome assessment of the regulatory relief provisions for biodiversity. It is on the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E. I tried to clarify with the chair last night whether we needed anything formal. His response was, \u201CIt is on the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E, it will be followed through with.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520004999\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f2b8d9837a7522f6e29fd989708b9f03\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, we\u2019ve had a line of questioning and I\u2019ve listened to the answers. There\u2019s nothing new coming out of the answers. But I\u2019ve also got another call that I\u2019m taking. I haven\u2019t taken a closure motion. So just let us get on with it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022d19f107bcd9471642cf6ac3bb42ff9df\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005000\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d19f107bcd9471642cf6ac3bb42ff9df\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (22:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. How about we just do some jumping around because we do have\u2014I don\u2019t think anyone\u2019s touched on any of the schedules that apply to this part. Those Schedules are 2, 2A, 3, 4, and 5. I will pre-empt my comment by saying I don\u2019t have very many comments on those schedules, but other members may.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAt clause 128, the section about wildlife approvals, I have a tabled amendment to that, which is to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cd1975a45724f5599ee063b3373b2430\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Just to the member, I think that is Part 4.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022123804d7bc78ccfa249a136ffe14d94d\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, have I moved on to Part 4 already?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251b71991e6f292e72707885b5de9a2ba\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: But I\u2019m happy to move on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002222d2f8f401fb091f495d9f3fc85f1a33\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, there we go. Sorry, I have moved on. So I think I\u2019ll sit down. You won\u2019t need to hear from me again, but, my colleagues, you do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221e9091d12e8b56e65717f7efc39c9e48\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: So in response to my question before\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002245bc654c58a41af686a152064755c374\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, no, I didn\u2019t have anything. I\u2019ve moved on to Part 4.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002226b4157757520ba847d42845701ec19c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m going to take one more call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u00221456491bc5bebbc49ece9728d484ce6a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221456491bc5bebbc49ece9728d484ce6a\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (22:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. A few questions. Given that the existing Resource Management Act (RMA) controls that are in place with plans right now have been known to purchasers since their introduction and therefore internalised in terms of their land values, what is the justification for allowing the retrospective application for the relief regime? Now, the Government can swear black and blue that the retrospective nature does not exist, when they know full well that every single protection that currently exists\u2014particularly for biodiversity, but across sites of significance for M\u0101ori\u2014everything will be new under the new system and will be subject to regulatory relief. Now, we\u2019ve already had pointed out very clearly to us, and I would like to understand if the member Simon Court has understood, the example of Auckland Council, where, before they even put in these rules, they have to do a property level assessment of over 20,000 properties that could be subject to regulatory relief. I\u2019m really interested in that question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy next question is: will assistance and compensation that has already been provided to landowners for RMA restrictions\u2014and this has happened in a number of areas, but I want to give particularly the example of assistance provided to farmers in Taranaki around their riparian strips, which we all support. If that protection is then removed later on, why do the bills not require them to pay the council back?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI would also like to hear the Minister provide any possible assurances that the most important areas of biodiversity and landscape will be prioritised for protection, given the ecological and, actually, economic importance to these areas. That is different to the relative ability of the councils to actually pay for them, because I would really love to understand and hear from the member what the actual response is to the council saying not only is this unworkable; it will cause a chilling effect on biodiversity protections and sites of significance for M\u0101ori, and they will not be able to pay for it. This should be entirely relevant and something that we are able to explore, given how novel, as the member has said consistently, this regime is, and he\u2019s also completely discredited the only part of information in that MartinJenkins report that he has. So if you don\u2019t have that, what evidence is the member actually basing this whole novel concept on, other than ideology?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022e31b442dc049cca0d4f6942e8a2a92bf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e31b442dc049cca0d4f6942e8a2a92bf\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:23)\u003C/span\u003E: It is not ideology to visit a property and to speak to a widow whose property was affected\u201475 percent of whose property was affected\u2014by the application of overlays, including significant natural areas, after her husband died, and she had no recourse whatsoever\u2014no recourse. It\u2019s come to your contention, Lan Pham, that those who experience these controls now should know what it feels like and be happy to accept that. No\u2014no. If they have purchased a property with the controls on them, then they will not be eligible for regulatory relief in the new system if those controls are similar. But if they did not willingly accept the controls, if they were imposed on them, then of course if a council intends to impose those type of controls that meet the threshold to protect significant indigenous biodiversity, a regulatory relief assessment and potentially regulatory relief\u2014they will be subject to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, whether a council, having gone through the exercise of working out what\u2019s significant, what the cost might be, what the options might be\u2014because there might be many properties where they might wish to protect the public value of significant indigenous biodiversity, where they say, \u201CYou know what, actually, we could exchange development rights. Half the property has got significant indigenous biodiversity on it. The other half might be suitable to build\u201D\u2014I don\u2019t know\u2014\u201Ca condo on it.\u201D All of this is going to be available to us to explore and determine in a transparent fashion. It\u2019s never been done before in New Zealand, and this is vitally important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThose are the trade-offs. Caveat emptor applies. If they bought a property with the existing controls and it turns out they\u2019re similar in the new system, they won\u2019t be eligible. We\u2019ve been very clear: it\u2019s not retrospective, and the trade-offs are going to be transparent. I\u2019ve covered this extensively last night.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI understand that the member has concerns about loss of indigenous biodiversity. All I would urge the member is to provide feedback on illustrative national policy directions currently out for non-statutory consultation, to remain engaged with the development of national standards around regulatory relief, and to remain engaged in her community and through the process so that\u2014being probably one of the more qualified people in regulatory relief now, having picked it up, as she told me in her introduction to a previous question\u2014she remains engaged, she remains an advocate for it. We\u2019re going to pass the legislation; it\u2019s going to be implemented.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022debf082cf8f443819754d4c7dec8037d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022debf082cf8f443819754d4c7dec8037d\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (22:25)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for taking this call when I had indicated I was going to jump into Wildlife Act approvals and go to Schedule 2A, but then I realised my mistake, and that is that schedules\u2014I think it\u2019s\u20143, 4 and 5 are all in Part 3, not Part 4. I don\u2019t know why I hadn\u2019t worked that out, so apologies for that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut I do think Schedule 5 is very important, because Schedule 5 is the farm plans schedule, and it\u2019s been changed a lot in Amendment Paper 710. Freshwater farm plans are in Schedule 5, and this is related to section 125\u2014and I\u2019m happy for the Clerk or someone to tell me I\u2019m wrong again, jumping around, but I think I\u2019m in the right part. These are major changes being made at this late stage, and there are changes to auditing and that the certifier can be the auditor, which doesn\u2019t make very much sense to me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do have an Amendment Paper, and that is No. 705. At clause 9, there is \u201CAudit of farm for compliance with freshwater farm plan\u201D, and it says there that a farm operator must do some things. It says, \u201CThe audit must be completed in the manner prescribed in regulations.\u201D Then, at subclause (3), \u201CThe farm operator must provide the auditor with reasonable access to the farm\u201D. I\u2019ve added in new subclause (4): \u201CThe frequency of audits must be determined based on the level of risk.\u201D So that would be good.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve just been a bit worried by some of the rhetoric that\u2019s been going around about the freshwater farm plans and these changes, which I won\u2019t go through in detail, but I\u2019m happy for the member in the chair, Simon Court, to make any further comments on them. But will he consider my amendment? I am interested in making sure that if freshwater farm plans are to be robust and if they are to be a useful mechanism for those farmers and processes to be able to demonstrate the good things that they\u2019re doing, then I think it\u2019s important that not only is there a certification aspect, but when they are audited, that audit is independent and aligns with the level of risk as well, to use the language of some other people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s my question on Schedule 5. I will leave that there for the member to answer and I\u2019ll try and see if I\u2019ve got any other questions on the other schedules now I\u2019ve remembered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00228c8efe3e1aa33366c15f5cea080a723f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228c8efe3e1aa33366c15f5cea080a723f\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:28)\u003C/span\u003E: I appreciate that the member the Hon Rachel Brooking wants to see risk managed effectively, but the amendment the member proposes is not necessary. The system already incorporates risk by determining which farm plans are certified and audited. The frequency of auditing is determined by the completion or not of actions, and an audit fail triggers a re-audit within 12 months.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022 data-id=\u0022bdedd33b5b6b98248ee6ee5f7a2fe866\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bdedd33b5b6b98248ee6ee5f7a2fe866\u0022\u003ETOM RUTHERFORD (National\u2014Bay of Plenty) (22:29)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c2209026160ad2fc594e8218cbe84fcb\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 3 set out on Amendment Paper 710 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aab649e6540f5bbcd4806b6a52f777b1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Lan Pham\u2019s amendment inserting clause 97(2)(a)(iii) set out on Amendment Paper 726 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222f8f9c8bb0fa832597454399e5d5a141\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Lan Pham\u2019s amendment inserting clause 97(3)(c) set out on Amendment Paper 677 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f77d007f79306ecb800d98b7a81a1ed6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Lan Pham\u2019s amendment to clause 97(4)(a) set out on Amendment Paper 681 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendment inserting clause 97(4)(c)(vi) set out on Amendment Paper 685 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a10d8bdbe2dfed8fac8ac9a65d6d4f39\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendment inserting new clause 100 set out on Amendment Paper 746 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendment deleting clause 111 set out on Amendment Paper 666 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Lan Pham\u2019s amendments to clause 122 set out on Amendment Paper 713 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Part 3 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 3 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002280f9f0ce07fdb5ff3d42c53d74fb33ce\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u002233176c84d975c77be8e7ca257f023793\u0022\u003EPart 4 Natural resource permits, and Schedules 2 and 2A\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b4bd64cee0e1828fe3dc0823e9e6d0ef\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to Part 4. This is the debate on clauses 126 to 203\u2014\u201CNatural resource permits\u201D\u2014Schedule 2, \u201CInformation required in application for natural resource permit\u201D; and Schedule 2A, \u201CProcess for obtaining wildlife approvals under this Act\u201D. The question is that Part 4 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022a5d0e68e1325749384cf745b01974287\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a5d0e68e1325749384cf745b01974287\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (22:36)\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to seek your clarification regarding the previous part, because I think, as my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking has suggested, there was a little bit of misunderstanding around the fact that Schedule 2 and 2A, as you just said, actually come before Schedules 3 to 5, which are in a previous section. Now, while the Hon Rachel Brooking has spoken on Schedule 5, I just want to seek clarification\u2014there were additional questions on Schedules 3 and 4, but while we were trying to seek a call, we noticed that our microphones weren\u2019t working and they might not be audible. I just want to check\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226fd11828485569c83b6f9d263befc22c\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003EYou don\u2019t need a mic.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220e395487b046de1228802767911a700a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Points of order are heard in silence, please.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fd1cba7b2752ddecd511e43ca6fca210\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: I do want to check with you, Madam Chair, what is, I guess, the recourse and what are the options for us when, for example, there are still two quite substantial schedules in the previous part that we weren\u2019t able to debate on. Again, in light of the fact that unfortunately we thought that\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224d99ae05ffd1c687bae431ff8fc63a7e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019re now up to Part 4. No one\u2019s mic is on unless they\u2019re speaking, so that\u2019s not a disadvantage. You can stand on your seat\u2014no, you can\u2019t, but you could wave your hands, do cartwheels in the aisle, but we won\u2019t be going backwards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226905d82932edceabfbac4a0df85861d6\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: No\u2014no. Absolutely. I completely understand. We won\u2019t be doing cartwheels, just for your clarification. I could do one, but I won\u2019t. But I just want to check if it\u2019s OK with you that in those cases, we were standing up and we were trying to take calls or raise points of order, but if the mic isn\u2019t on, I just want to check with you that it\u2019s OK if we raise our voice a little bit just so that any Chair in the seat is able to hear.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f1ac209fe9d4dcdee4b25d3ef8c6cc8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: As long as it\u2019s not louder than Tom Rutherford.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225a1968604bef254f066e1f7b2601a1a1\u0022\u003ETom Rutherford\u003C/span\u003E: Bring it on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f9c1810ec0e2089323afd75a4eed355e\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Is that a challenge? But yes, thank you. That\u2019s helpful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022b6e9fe79ba48c6c7ec0c4368b484e1db\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b6e9fe79ba48c6c7ec0c4368b484e1db\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (22:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, I\u2019m worried for my eardrums. Anyway, clause 128: as foreshadowed, we\u2019d like to speak about clause 128. This is \u201CWildlife approvals\u201D, and I\u2019m sure other members will have things to say about this as well because it is a substantive change in that wildlife approvals will now be able to be granted through this replacement Resource Management Act process. We raised some concerns with this in our differing view and said that the bill should retain the Department of Conservation as decision maker for the Wildlife Act approvals and that it should specify appropriate time frames, if time frames were the issue, and still keep the department as the decision maker, but if there are time issues then those could be inserted into this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI have got a tabled amendment from 7.55 p.m., 26 August\u2014I think it was last night; yes, it was last night. It\u2019s just to delete the whole section. It\u2019s not the most elegant amendment and I\u2019d be happy to amend it to make it align with our differing view.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do want to also note a concern that we had that there was a change in the Environment Committee about looking at applicants\u2019 behaviour and whether or not they\u2019d been convicted before, but there was a decision in the select committee not to require this information when the approval is transferred to a third party. So if I had a bad track record and was applying for a wildlife permit, that would be relevant, but if Arena Williams had a good track record, got the permit and then transferred it to me, then that would be fine\u2014and that seems like, well, shouldn\u2019t I just not be getting the permit if I\u2019ve got this bad track record? I\u2019d invite the member in the chair, Simon Court, to consider a change around that aspect, as well as making the Department of Conservation the decision maker. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I\u2019ll just quickly flick through to Schedule 2A, and this is the schedule that\u2019s been inserted to deal with these wildlife approvals. I note a good change that appears to be made\u2014I mean, it might have come from somewhere else, so the member in the chair can feel free to tell me if this is not a good change; if I\u2019m misattributing goodness. But at clause 24 of Schedule 2A on page 275, there\u2019s an insertion at (3A) noting \u201CThe Department may recover directly from a permit authority the Department\u2019s reasonable costs incurred in providing advice under clause 4.\u201D Why I say that it\u2019s good is that I, of course, would like the Department of Conservation to be the decision maker within time frames in the first place, but if I can\u2019t have that\u2014and I would like it and I would like the member to speak to that\u2014then it is good that the department can do cost recovery, because they are so under-funded and they need to do that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also note that some of the entities that can be consulted include a relevant iwi authority or post-settlement governance entity. I wonder if there also needs to be a provision for them to recover directly any reasonable costs incurred. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo I\u2019ll round this contribution up: on Schedule 2A, this insertion at subclause (3A) that the department may recover costs\u2014is that new or has it just been repurposed from somewhere else? Second, what about relevant iwi authorities in terms of cost recovery? And then, going back to clause 128, would the member consider reverting to the department being the decision maker but prescribing time limits for the department to make timely decisions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022fc84016bd98d5d5df1c4c4a7d3693111\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fc84016bd98d5d5df1c4c4a7d3693111\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:43)\u003C/span\u003E: In response to the member the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s question on Wildlife Act approvals, just to be clear, the bill creates a dedicated wildlife approvals process that can be processed alongside natural resource permits, retains key Wildlife Act protections, including safeguards for species viability and local populations with threatened or at-risk wildlife, and decision makers must consider relevant Department of Conservation guidance and advice, and adverse effects must be addressed. The member did confirm that this was extensively canvassed at the Environment Committee, and the Amendment Paper does not include any changes to what was reported back to the House. You\u2019ll see there\u2019s no changes in clause 128.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust in response to the member\u2019s question about Schedule 2A, clause 24(3A): the insertion of the clause, \u201CThe Department may recover directly from a permit authority the Department\u2019s reasonable costs incurred in providing advice\u201D, essentially corrects a drafting error omission to make it clear that when the department is required to provide advice or advice is sought in relation to a Wildlife Act permit application, the department is entitled to recover its direct costs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn response to the member\u2019s question as to whether the Government would consider amending the legislation to take up her amendment: no.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u00220335f1cef2c283864d61d0ac6fd52b4c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220335f1cef2c283864d61d0ac6fd52b4c\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (22:45)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. A general question, firstly, about Schedule 2A. I\u2019ve heard the Government\u2019s description and the member in the chair\u2019s description of this as moving to a system of a one-stop shop. It makes sense at one level that you would have one approval for land use and certain wildlife\u2014that you wouldn\u2019t do that twice\u2014but then it begs the question: well, is Schedule 2A the same legal test as applied under the old Wildlife Act test but for, obviously, the decision maker being different and giving different weighting consideration? Is it the same mechanism? That\u2019s the question around Schedule 2A.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe other question I have is, you know, with the environmental regulator changing in this part from the Department of Conservation (DOC) to the councils, do councils then need to take into account those things that DOC would have been able to consider, like whether\u2014you know, essentially they were asking the question, \u201CIs this person a suitable person to move and disturbed wildlife?\u201D, and not the question that the councils are asking, which is, \u201CIs this land appropriate for development?\u201D Is the council also empowered to make that sort of judgment when granting the application, when they don\u2019t necessarily have that expertise? As it works now\u2014say, if you\u2019re a forestry company; say, if you\u2019re a quarrying company\u2014you will have someone on staff who is sort of qualified to deal with the making of their wildlife applications and to have expertise to engage the right people. To the member in the chair, Simon Court: do you think that system will continue?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002229ad43020ec3e9d420dd246c7d8ef2b3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002229ad43020ec3e9d420dd246c7d8ef2b3\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:46)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, and in response to the member Arena Williams\u2019 earlier question, which I omitted to respond to fully, and the member has brought back the same question in some other form, the transfer\u2014this relates to the transfer of permits\u2014mirrors the Natural Environment Bill\u2019s permit approach. Transfer has to comply with conditions and the transfer process provides visibility over the parties involved in the transfer. Councils can still use other tools, like increased inspection and monitoring frequency, if they\u2019re concerned\u2014for example, if they\u2019re aware of issues or they\u2019re not familiar with the operator; or, if there\u2019s an individual who\u2019s been the responsible person for this in an organisation like a quarry business, they can be more involved. Those protections and that responsiveness are still available in the system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022de2008995c3ece52b1248e78ca2b759a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022de2008995c3ece52b1248e78ca2b759a\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (22:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. That really did answer my questions, and then the only questions I have remaining are specifically about airports. There are some provisions that are specially for airports, but I want to ask whether those provisions that exist under the old regime for airports\u2014which are very restrictive for wildlife; appropriately so\u2014but that are not put in place through this new sort of regime will still be carried over. The really restrictive rules that I\u2019m talking about are for birds. Airports need to constantly be moving birds away from their runway, and it makes sense about why. But lots of them are also in places\u2014say on the Manukau Harbour; Auckland Airport is home to a significant proportion of New Zealand\u2019s rarest dotterels. You understand the issues here. They\u2019re really specific consents. Are they going to just port over?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u00226bba00f18edc47c94e3721360f583438\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226bba00f18edc47c94e3721360f583438\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (22:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m really pleased to take a first call on wildlife permits, because I was unable to take a call on coastal matters, water conservation orders, farm environment plans, or precautionary principles. So I really appreciate being able to speak to this one, in particular. That\u2019s because it is a novel new aspect which is introduced through this bill. What I\u2019m really interested to pick up on specifically in Schedule 2A is clause 4\u2014this is in Part 1 of Schedule 2A\u2014where the permit authority may request advice from the department. That refers to the Department of Conservation, which is a good thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, the concern here with them asking the department for advice is that later in the clause, it makes it really clear that the department is under no obligation to provide advice under this clause.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis comes squarely back to the fact that the Department of Conservation (DOC), who do hold the expertise to understand what wildlife approvals and the implications are for the often highly endangered biodiversity where the developments or activities are going to impact\u2014they not only have the expertise but the protective purpose in their own legislation and oversight to enable that to be the best possible information. Now, the problem and the concern, which I\u2019m really interested in hearing the member Simon Court\u2019s response to, is if DOC, they may either choose not to\u2014I don\u2019t know why they would choose not to, but they may choose not to; they may also be unable to because they are under strict resourcing capacity where budget cuts have really crippled their ability to respond to these things. They may be simply unable to respond to these requests from the permitting authority. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat I\u2019m really interested to hear the member advise\u2014particularly those who submitted on this, but also the councils who are going to be tasked with undertaking this new role\u2014what is their recourse there? Are they then implicated that they have to make a decision no matter what, even if they don\u2019t have adequate advice from DOC? What is their recourse? I think what\u2019s really concerning with it\u2014and I\u2019d love to hear the Minister comment specifically on this\u2014is that councils themselves will also be under extreme resource capacity issues, particularly when it comes to the rates cap that this Government is putting in place. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223ddb610047030a25d22b7b31a33c6d34\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: No, we\u2019re moving on\u2014that\u2019s a completely different matter. I want the questions to relate\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cedc41052eb5f3df50ee6213938e5bbb\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c486b905e23b2fdc600c3a6d17a9b418\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I know.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b7603b4e1371efa79a0d0645e5cd8f1d\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, it\u2019s about the capacity. I\u2019m not going to say anything else about it. It was the example about the capacity of councils. which we know are strained. Thank you, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00225c8b2d9b0ab6518230e0c2720afc86e7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225c8b2d9b0ab6518230e0c2720afc86e7\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:52)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll respond to a couple of questions to the member Arena Williams\u2019 questions about airports. The question was around: do existing permits need\u2014for wildlife, birds; it might be in an airport precinct. Those permits do not need to transfer. There\u2019s an existing permit; it stays where it is. It doesn\u2019t need to transfer into the new system or be reissued but if they wanted to apply for a wildlife permit under the provisions of the Natural Environment Bill for something else, some other activity, that would be a matter for them to decide under which legislation they applied.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn response to member Lan Pham\u2019s question in relation to Schedule 2A, clause 4, \u201CPermit authority may request advice from [the] Department\u201D: if the member\u2019s concerned about Department of Conservation (DOC) resourcing\u2014I answered a question in relation to Rachel Brooking\u2019s question on clause 24(3A) of Schedule 2A, which provides for the department to be able to recover the costs of giving advice so, in that respect, that should not be a barrier to seeking advice. But I\u2019ve been advised that clause 4(2), \u201CThe Department is under no obligation to provide advice under this clause.\u201D\u2014because this legislation cannot compel the department to do something, but I think it\u2019s entirely reasonable to anticipate that where advice is sought for a matter that crosses the threshold of where it\u2019s important, DOC would be able to provide that advice and recover the costs of it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u002246c22d52e21a2f69a9968caa88d26c86\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002246c22d52e21a2f69a9968caa88d26c86\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (22:53)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the member for relaying that. What I am interested in is about the transfer of the function once the consent or the activity is actually granted; this is my next question on wildlife permits. My understanding is that once the activity is granted, all the compliance and enforcement actually sits with the regional council. That means there\u2019s no authority for the Department of Conservation (DOC) in that space. What I\u2019m interested in understanding from the member Simon Court is: what is the mechanism for the regional council to either be resourced or advised from DOC about what adequate monitoring and compliance would look like for that, and what is DOC\u2019s role, if anything? My understanding is that they\u2019d be completely hands off from that point. Do they have any oversight? What we understand about these wildlife permit pathways is that they\u2019re entirely at the discretion of the applicant, whether they go down the Department of Conservation route or the council approval route. Now, should that be something that is really clarified in these bills\u2014that there should be, or could be, an oversight role for DOC so that it\u2019s not just passed over to under-resourced councils.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00222c63e62bfcceecb4312379b1a50f1369\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222c63e62bfcceecb4312379b1a50f1369\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:55)\u003C/span\u003E: Resourcing is a matter for the organisation, but let\u2019s be clear\u2014and I mentioned this in my opening comments in response to questions about this matter\u2014this provision retains key Wildlife Act protections, including safeguards for species viability, local populations, threatened or at risk wildlife, and decision makers must consider relevant Department of Conservation guidance and advice. I would expect, if there was advice forthcoming about a monitoring regime and potentially an adaptive management regime or whatever it was, that would be incorporated by the consenting authority into conditions. Of course, any adverse effects must be addressed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022 data-id=\u00225447b3492535f896d0c7e101295139e7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225447b3492535f896d0c7e101295139e7\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON (Green) (22:56)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m wanting to clarify around wildlife approvals, and in particular, if we go to clause 16 of Schedule 2A\u2014\u201CDecision-making framework\u201D\u2014where there\u2019s a requirement for \u201CNotification of a relevant iwi authority or post-settlement governance entity\u201D. I\u2019m wanting to explore\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022303d7e7b543b1b09e0df3e46b7d43498\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Please limit the noise to my right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002282994fd7f096ea4ad266ffdf005131ca\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014clause 16 in relation to the notification of the iwi authority or the post-settlement governance entity (PSGE). In this clause 16(1) and (2), it talks about the fact that the \u201Cpermit authority must notify any \u2026 iwi authority or [PSGE] about [the] application for a wildlife approval if it considers that [the] notification is required to give effect to [a] Treaty settlement redress.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s a couple of questions that I want to ask in relation to this, because there\u2019s an assumption here that \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Emana whenua \u003C/span\u003E or iwi of the rohe\u2014all are settled. Therefore, is this a limiting factor, the way that we are posing this part of the legislation where it\u2019s focused on iwi authorities and post-settlement governance entities, and you\u2019ll only be notified if it\u2019s related to settlement redress? Even if you do have a settlement and your Treaty settlement redress may not be relevant to this, should you still not be notified, but then, what if you aren\u2019t settled\u2014what if you aren\u2019t settled? And I think about us in the North; there\u2019s quite a few that don\u2019t have settlements\u2014but we are active in this space and we have a council or Crown relationships established, and we are recognised with Crown mandates. Should we still not be advised for this purpose? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf I can just ask a couple of questions with the member Simon Court to carry on this line of questioning. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002226c7a2cb501f39e28a19398b13abe751\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, he was just jumping up to answer your question; Simon Court.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00229eb4ef389ac4806c167b8cfbaa167ef9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229eb4ef389ac4806c167b8cfbaa167ef9\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:58)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m not familiar with the particular circumstances or status of the groups that the member H\u016Bhana Lyndon described, but under clause 16(1) of Schedule 2A, \u201CA permit authority must notify any relevant iwi authority or post-settlement governance entity\u201D. I expect there will be provision for authorities that aren\u2019t post-settlement governance entities but, again, we\u2019re trying to be as definitive as possible about what the obligations are on decision makers. It\u2019s pretty clear in that clause.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022 data-id=\u0022b1d2ebd138e00713f6c53a384a0b53dd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b1d2ebd138e00713f6c53a384a0b53dd\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON (Green) (22:59)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, thank you. If I can carry on with this line of questioning, because it makes an assumption that the M\u0101ori relationship with the Crown is just based on Treaty settlement alone, but we know that we have\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cbecc66267a89445728dd322c68afd93\u0022\u003ESimon Court\u003C/span\u003E: No, it\u2019s\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220c29152e369a7277224dbe341165b1b7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The member\u2019s saying that\u2019s not correct, so maybe we might clarify that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221d8079c98cf818c0083ecc395749ced0\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, I guess because it\u2019s not explicit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220e66855b9a5c0a62071bd00bde053d0d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Just before the member carries on, the member in the chair said no, so I think we want to clarify because I don\u2019t want you to go down a line of questioning that isn\u2019t correct.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00224245831d9e3202883a379a95cf0ce71c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224245831d9e3202883a379a95cf0ce71c\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:59)\u003C/span\u003E: It does refer to post-settlement governance entities (PSGEs)\u2014in other words, settled iwi\u2014but it also makes explicit provision in clause 16(1) for \u201Cany relevant iwi authority\u201D, so there\u2019s obviously the opportunity there for organisations that are PSGEs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022 data-id=\u0022d5f549c3b4d4858edc7c6a939e308128\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d5f549c3b4d4858edc7c6a939e308128\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON (Green) (23:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that, because there are many that have operated under the previous Resource Management Act (RMA) regime who were recognised as iwi. I\u2019d like to note entities such as Patuharakeke Te Iwi Trust Board or Te R\u016Bnanga o Ng\u0101ti Hine. These entities have had recognised RMA iwi status for a really long time, so that gives comfort to the fact that they could still be considered iwi authorities in this space. If we go to subclause (2) here, so clause 16(2), if a permit authority notifies any iwi authority or post-settlement governance entity, \u201Cthe permit authority must notify the applicant in the manner prescribed in regulations\u201D\u2014oh, and then it\u2019s scrubbed out \u201Cif it decides to do so.\u201D So, OK, it\u2019s going to happen, because it\u2019s scrubbed out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI want to go over and consider or bring to light the voice of iwi of Te Wai Pounamu, particularly Ng\u0101ti Kuia of Te Tauihu o Te Waka, who shared in their submissions to the select committee where it had grave concerns that the proposal to transfer the Wildlife Act authorisations away from the Department of Conservation, a system which the iwi was used to and comfortable with. If it was transferred and there was a lesser obligation with respect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, they would have grave concerns, because, fundamentally, the importance of wildlife authorisations should be a requirement of the Te Tiriti relationship anyhow. That was emphasised also by Te R\u016Bnanga o Ng\u0101i Tahu, who shared that giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi should remain a principal obligation of decision making when it comes to taonga such as wildlife, whatever side of the continuum we go to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00225ecfd8b9f6a175e2305a30a1e2091afe\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225ecfd8b9f6a175e2305a30a1e2091afe\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (23:02)\u003C/span\u003E: Look, I apologise to the member. In my previous answer in relation to relevant iwi authority post-settlement governance entities\u2014I have been advised that relevant iwi authorities are associated with post-settlement governance entities, so on that basis, there is no additional provision for this clause to apply to other groups. I apologise to the member. I did not mean to mislead her; I just misunderstood what those terms meant.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn response to the question the member raised about concerns that groups might have where they\u2019re familiar with the Department of Conservation process but not familiar with this process\u2014look, we are providing this additional process through this legislation. It\u2019s a dedicated wildlife approvals process that can be processed alongside natural resource permits. While groups might not be familiar with this process, we intend that it addresses the same issues and provides for the same processes, and there will be an opportunity for them to engage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022 data-id=\u00224dbd5706d1f098f3aa8017350e122ee7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224dbd5706d1f098f3aa8017350e122ee7\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON (Green) (23:03)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Just in closing, to round off this, then\u2014because we\u2019ve had a bit of discussion around what is the definition of the iwi authority yesterday, last night, and today\u2014it\u2019s great to hear from the member in the chair confirming that an iwi authority is associated with settlement. We heard last night that large natural groupings that have a mandate with the Crown who might be entering into negotiations won\u2019t be recognised\u2014because that was clarified last night\u2014for the purposes of these bills in the new system as iwi authorities. That was confirmed last night in the Planning Bill. Hap\u016B groupings that are moving together, who have a Crown mandate, will not be recognised as iwi authorities. Groupings that have been moving through the Resource Management Act process over a number of years, a solid 20 years - odd\u2014I talk about Patuharakeke again, in Whang\u0101rei, and Te R\u016Bnanga o Ng\u0101ti Hine as examples. They have been operating as iwi authorities under the Resource Management Act for a long time, but they will be excluded in being defined as an iwi authority in the Natural Environment Bill. We are limiting and narrowing the scope of what iwi authorities are, because it\u2019s all based on settlement now. Is that how we are now in terms of the Crown-M\u0101ori relationship\u2014it\u2019s only those that are settled?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002259d5320258f8c4c4ac05bdae9b76bf75\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002259d5320258f8c4c4ac05bdae9b76bf75\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (23:05)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve been advised that this clause and the description here apply only to these Wildlife Act matters.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u002236e639c7ea5b9f1b91145a55f43f594e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002236e639c7ea5b9f1b91145a55f43f594e\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (23:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to take us to clause 169, on page 146. I am jumping ahead, but the reason I want to get to this part is because the natural resource permits have something I\u2019m particularly interested in, which is the bond regime. The bond regime is going to work in a different way, I think, under the new provisions, because it allows councils to have a sort of ongoing interest in consents as they are intended to play out. You have these consents, which are either conditional\u2014that\u2019s in the first part of the Act, and that\u2019s a slightly different kind of creature than the consents that exist at the moment. But the bond regime is something that carries over from the Resource Management Act (RMA). There are particular ways that this is different. The first is that in the member\u2019s version, the bond regime\u2019s conditions are set out in secondary legislation\u2014they\u2019re not kept in the primary legislation\u2014so they can be changed. I imagine that\u2019s how he\u2019s going to make sure that they work with those consents, which can be updated across time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThere are two things that bonds might be able to apply to. They\u2019re very under-used in the resource management system as it is now, so, hopefully, this will be a bigger feature of the system now that there are conditional consents. Decommissioning is one. If you\u2019re a quarry owner and you want to move out of owning that quarry, you might have a bond with the council so that if you fold up your company, you\u2019ve still indemnified the council for the cost of the clean-up, say. Or there\u2019s a second one, and this is what I\u2019m asking about, because it\u2019s new: it\u2019s stormwater. Is the member in the chair intending to be able to use conditional consenting and bonds to be able to consent more flexibly for things like stormwater and water provision in housing developments? These are things where councils actually, effectively, do do this in practice, where councils with a very large housing developer are able to say to that housing developer that they have confidence that they\u2019ll stand behind the development and be able to provide the stormwater works. I want to be able to do that\u2014can this do that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022cb55173c9d4d9a80474a3d343980c95e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cb55173c9d4d9a80474a3d343980c95e\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (23:08)\u003C/span\u003E: The question the member asked, as far as it relates to housing developments\u2014this legislation is the Natural Environment Bill, so I can\u2019t provide any advice on that. But what I can say is that the bond regime is essentially the same as the Resource Management Act, but broader powers to improve other financial assurances are set out in Schedule 8 of the Planning Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d51beb0764d095c6612a7b9b3afc37f6\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Madam Chair. I can\u2019t hear the member.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002259ab53344d3d372c4ec4cc75222bfde1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, there\u2019s a lot of talking going on over there. I\u2019m just trying to get this answer really quickly from Simon Court, because the Minister is in the Chamber and he needs to be in the chair, and it was because I knew that Simon Court had heard the question. But you are right\u2014there was a lot of noise. We\u2019re all good. We\u2019ll swap now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223773a12b0293326049e06153aa7a203a\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Why don\u2019t you do the call from your chair?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226f583d6075fe4e6bf0fad4edd77739b1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Simon Court can take a call from over there, but the Minister must be here. Had you finished, Simon Court?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221c1436027633152d01b404e45af1b7fc\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: In response to the question from the Chair, I had completed my answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e66f4c1bf5aa0a6b33bd131070755cdb\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s great. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00224259516f170f83cca580b1dd81ab22f7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224259516f170f83cca580b1dd81ab22f7\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (23:09)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question for the Minister regarding a mention of Schedule 2A\u2014and this is in clause 128. But I specifically want to ask a question on clause (3)(f) of Schedule 2A. Now, my understanding is that in this case you are applying for wildlife approval, and paragraph (f) talks about \u201Cand humanely catch, hold, or kill the animals and identify relevant animal ethics processes:\u201D But we saw in the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Act 2025 that the director-general may grant an authority under, now, new section 53A of the Wildlife Act, to authorise the killing of wildlife that is incidental, and in this case, \u201Cincidental\u201D is defined as something that is unavoidable but foreseeable as carrying out a lawful activity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo I guess my question to the Minister is: if a person is able to get the director-general to grant authority now under section 53A of the Wildlife Act, why bother applying for wildlife approval, particularly when around subclause (3)(f) in terms of the killing of wildlife\u2014what is the difference between the two processes in that case?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo just for reference, the particular section that is now in the Wildlife Act is section 53A, and it was something that was added in the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Act 2025.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u00227667e8babe8e1f049c437e7ac2fb63c2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227667e8babe8e1f049c437e7ac2fb63c2\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (23:11)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to keep moving back to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d79107fefab28df0953f7cda20244837\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Just a moment. Would members please take those conversations outside.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d3d764fcdd55e8bd5baed42b75498ef6\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to keep moving through, out of Schedule 2A\u2014that\u2019s the main part of the bill\u2014specifically to clause 140 of Part 4, and this is about council\u2019s requests for further information. And there\u2019s this new clause, subclause (2A), \u201CA permit authority may request further information from an applicant only once in relation to any 1 application, unless\u2014\u201D. Now, it says \u201Cunless\u201D and there are two provisos to that, where the applicant agrees and where the information provided by the applicant changes the permit authority\u2019s understanding of the effects, and also where the applicant changes the proposal to which the application relates.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, this is all really sensible stuff. What I\u2019m really interested in is this \u201Conce\u201D limitation. What we know from these council processes is that there are genuine things that pop up that are outside of those three considerations in subclause 2A\u2014in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c). . What I\u2019m also interested in understanding from the Minister is: is this regardless of scale? So does it not matter whether the activity is simply something minor or a massive development? I think that finding this out would be really helpful for local authorities in terms of not unduly constraining them from actually obtaining the information they need to be able to make a good decision. So I\u2019m really interested in the Minister\u2019s response to that in terms of further information.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to also touch on clause 146, which is about notification requirements. In the Planning Bill, there\u2019s a different threshold for when consents actually have to be notified, and under the Planning Bill it\u2019s when they have more than minor effects. But under the Natural Environment Bill, it is only where they have significant effects. Now, surely the general understanding of the aspects of the domains in the Natural Environment Bill where we have common pools of resources in our shared environment\u2014surely this warrants more public involvement than for, say, sort of urban frictions and tensions managed under the Planning Bill. So why is there that sort of opposite of what you would expect when it comes to public participation in what we understand can be serious implications when it comes to activities and development under this Act? That is my next question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u002224fec741e50eadc1c8b70b9ce7833288\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002224fec741e50eadc1c8b70b9ce7833288\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (23:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Very briefly, in relation to Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s question about the Wildlife Act, I\u2019m advised it is a different pathway to get the same kind of authorisation under the Natural Environment Act, only we are also getting a permit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to Ms Pham\u2019s first question, the general policy position here is that the bills require further information requests being proportionate to scale and significance of the effects of the activity and generally only occur once, and I think I heard the member say that that all seemed like sensible stuff. It\u2019s a constant source of frustration for people, the constant requests for information and the backwards and forwards\u2014it\u2019s a nightmare. We\u2019re trying to limit that down. But there need to be exceptions, and they are laid out in the relevant clause, so the applicant can agree, for example. So it may be that the consent authority comes back and says that further information is required for it to be processed properly, and if the applicant agrees, two parties voluntarily choosing to consent together, it\u2019s happy days.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to the question around the significance threshold, that is a deliberate policy decision made because we think significance is the appropriate threshold.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u00220b1aa2fdf90eb5ba221758ce47e81684\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220b1aa2fdf90eb5ba221758ce47e81684\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (23:16)\u003C/span\u003E: That is a really great example that the Minister\u2019s just given about it\u2019s happy days if the applicant agrees. The concern and what I think is quite well known with a lot of these consenting processes and decisions made by councils, is that there are often individuals who are much less forthcoming with agreeing to provide further information. When I was saying that this all looks sensible, I was talking about the criteria that was actually set out. On the face of it, the criteria is good, but what I\u2019m concerned about is those gaps and why we would unnecessarily constrain councils for genuine reasons that pop up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe Minister and the Government have been happy to put, for example, in the procedural principles some general guidance around being pragmatic, being solution focused\u2014whatever. Couldn\u2019t this be a place where something directive like that actually guides this without unduly constraining councils to be part of that back and forth to make sure that they have the best possible information to make a decision? Now, I\u2019m happy to move on unless the Minister wants to respond.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022daa805eec3e7518f4be6eb3423c9635a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022daa805eec3e7518f4be6eb3423c9635a\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (23:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Only to say, the member\u2019s right. At the risk of stating the obvious, it\u2019s in the interests of people who wish to get permits to supply all the right information and if they chose not to, well, that\u2019s on them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u002244825b60ae9c0a0548b8111757fcfc04\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002244825b60ae9c0a0548b8111757fcfc04\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (23:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m moving on now to clause 166, and this is something that has been removed from these new versions of the bills. What\u2019s been hugely disappointing about this removal is that this clause is the precautionary principle. I\u2019m really interested in hearing from the Minister the justification for its removal. I note specifically\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220ee68733e0205fee69631c49429d8866\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: Which clause?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c9a352efe5586c1a86abb6e3172dd53b\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s in between 165 and  167 but it\u2019s been deleted from the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper, so it\u2019s not there any more.  My understanding is that the precautionary principle is something that has been developed in case law rather than being explicit in the Resource Management Act, so there is no change there. But when the bills were first introduced, what people submitted on was appreciating the fact that the precautionary principle would be there as a backstop to the fact that there are other erosions of environmental protections.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ESo what is the Minister\u2019s response given the removal of that precautionary principle? What is his perception of what the backstop safeguards are when you don\u2019t have enough information, when things are uncertain, there are risks of significant impacts\u2014what is the Minister\u2019s perception of that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022768a6fd9c4923e2e23c2b31f5a093d2c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022768a6fd9c4923e2e23c2b31f5a093d2c\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (23:20)\u003C/span\u003E: Just a bit more on the significant threshold\u2014I said before, around public notification, it\u2019s consistent with the enabling nature of the system. Our view is that it would encourage participation earlier on in the system, and, of course, it will include standards and plans as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to the precautionary principles, there were concerns about how it would operate in practice given that some degree of uncertainty is inherent in many natural resource-use activities. Removing the principle does not remove environmental protection; decision makers will still need to use evidence, manage risks, and apply the protections in the legislation and national direction. For example, the bill provides for adaptive management where there is uncertainty about an activity\u2019s effects, which the member can find in clause 167. It allows activities to proceed in stages, with baseline information, monitoring reporting, and clear environmental triggers. Where monitoring shows risks are greater than anticipated, activities can be modified, scaled back, paused, or, ultimately, discontinued.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis approach enables appropriate development while ensuring environmental risks are actively managed and irreversible effects are avoided. Precaution can still be applied, where appropriate, through national instruments, which can direct when and how precaution should be applied for particular resources, activities, or places. We felt that was a better approach than a simple statutory statement around endorsing the precautionary principle. The devil, as always with this stuff, is in the detail.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022 data-id=\u002283ddd895cf63d0fec61c67babec357db\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002283ddd895cf63d0fec61c67babec357db\u0022\u003EORIINI KAIPARA (Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori\u2014T\u0101maki Makaurau) (23:21)\u003C/span\u003E: T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Madam Chair. My understanding of Part 4 is that it decides who\u2019s heard, what can be ignored, and who receives the right to use the resources, which are, actually, Te Tiriti questions and they\u2019re not merely processing concerns. The clauses, from 126 to 137, applications, prior consultations, and priorities\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b457ef9f28e30e68854a0ad4fac27a71\u0022\u003ECatherine Wedd\u003C/span\u003E: You\u2019ve gone back.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cf0fd635092a42ed3c8ab8053fe79905\u0022\u003ESuze Redmayne\u003C/span\u003E: You\u2019ve gone back.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f7fe645ffc3f51f04764a1a6f258bc88\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll be the judge of where we go to. We allowed Lan Pham to skip forward; Oriini Kaipara has been trying to take a call for a little while.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002254a679dd65c148dbeb2fbed3854d07e9\u0022\u003EORIINI KAIPARA\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. The concern in this part here is really around clause 129. Clause 129 says that prior consultation is not required. However, clause 136, on priority rules, risks perpetuating, first, an advantage, which, to my understanding, and to the understanding of the committee, means that the priority goes to whoever has a complete application for a scarce natural resource such as fresh water\u2014they pretty much get it first.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWith that in mind, in relation to clause 136, priority rules, which risks perpetuating, first, an advantage and an exclusion of mana whenua interests, my question to the Minister, really, is: why does clause 129 expressly remove a prior consultation requirement where taonga or settlement interests may be affected? Then, when must an applicant engage the relevant iwi or hap\u016B before the design is fixed? The reason for that question is that the real concern is notification after lodgment is equivalent to partnership while options remain open. That\u2019s a genuine concern from iwi that have been talking directly to us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00224e822d75732632c16eecae9e8fbeadf8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224e822d75732632c16eecae9e8fbeadf8\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (23:23)\u003C/span\u003E: Clause\u00A0129 is a carry-over from the Resource Management Act, and the key is to get these things into plans. It\u2019s not really relevant in relation to the Treaty, because there are other provisions in both bills around Treaty obligations through settlements and also M\u0101ori interests through national instruments\u2014and then the obligations contained in the goals, and then the national policy directions and the standards that flow from the goals in relation to M\u0101ori interests.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00224cd8846e3bf593ec76aef8078f3a8c3c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224cd8846e3bf593ec76aef8078f3a8c3c\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (23:23)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227533da6ddfb8f16d6d492258ad97518f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I know you can be very quick and concise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d619872465f20677b2e342475706fb81\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. I\u2019ve got three quick questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022470530d285a61d1c59b0ba2cac8abf34\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022220290f76ffcdae8fb72f4f60217225e\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: The first one: I just want to thank the Minister responsible for RMA Reform for his response around the interaction with the Wildlife Act. A quick follow-up question on that: if both are the same path to the same goal, what would people likely choose\u2014for example, is there a preference? Is one more costly than the other, for example? I just want to check what the likelihood is of people treading one path over the other.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m going to move on to clause 148. This is clause 148(2)(ca) and 149(3)(ba). Both of these provisions have included this new area\u2014a new definition has been included around controlled activity. I wanted to check, in those cases, how different, then\u2014would a permit authority, in those two clauses, consider the restricted discretionary activity differently from a controlled activity? From what I\u2019m seeing, the drafting is identical except for one being a restricted discretionary activity and one being a controlled activity that\u2019s been inserted in Amendment Paper 710. I just want to get confirmation from the Minister on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy final question is on clause 156(1)(a)(ii). This particular wording has changed from \u201Cthe natural environment\u201D to \u201Cnatural resources\u201D. I understand why we have, potentially, \u201Cnatural resources\u201D to be consistent with the other uses, but would one consider the interpretation of \u201Cnatural resources\u201D as a synonym for \u201Cnatural environment\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022aef73377bf507bbec129bef9bea28a8b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022aef73377bf507bbec129bef9bea28a8b\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (23:25)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll just deal with the first question, and I\u2019ll come back on the other two. In answer to the first question\u2014\u201CWhat would people choose?\u201D\u2014it\u2019s over to applicants, but the Natural Environment Bill provides a one-stop shop, so why would you not just choose that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u002281316bc4c98a4276e618ecf4320d3585\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002281316bc4c98a4276e618ecf4320d3585\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (23:26)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019ve got a small contribution to make on clauses 164 and 164A, which goes to my published Amendment Paper 747 and relates to the references to clause 79. Of course, we\u2019ll remember clause 79\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221f671a8fbc6f8e2f20f7919468d3bdfa\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: Which clause?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b3e338005d054096a9d789d44d6e74fc\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m at page 142. Clause 79 is in a different part, and it\u2019s to do with the Minister\u2019s override of limits, if the limits even exist. We had a long discussion in the other part, and it turns out that not even\u2014maybe, maybe we\u2019ll have environmental limits. But, if there is an environmental limit, the Minister, at clause 79, can get around them. My amendment here is to delete that reference to clause 79, because I also have another amendment to delete all of clause 79.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002294a949113b67907033891d6d300a83ee\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, can you give me the number of your amendment?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a823e023ee8f221e24286a537ae83e85\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Amendment Paper 747.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227fce6a529f1442f6c76122534c0714a7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002206483ccf6331cc9dc9ee813795cd2ed5\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Given that we\u2019re on matters for which a permit must not be granted, it would be good if that would include just a simple breach of an environmental limit. Given that we\u2019ve had the discussion we had in the earlier part, we know that these environmental limits are highly unlikely to ever occur, and so there\u2019s no need to have an exception to the requirement to the inability to grant a permit if there\u2019s a breach.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMy question is whether the Minister will agree with me that a breach is a breach\u2014don\u2019t worry about an exception, because it\u2019s so unlikely to ever happen anyway in his dastardly scheme.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022b7b35146d24ae88a8090349cf0dc26b8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b7b35146d24ae88a8090349cf0dc26b8\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (23:28)\u003C/span\u003E: \u201CDastardly\u201D is a bit strong; I\u2019ll put that down to it being 11.28 at night. I mean, I think we had a discussion at question time about this\u2014I can\u2019t remember who it was; I had four questions to deal with today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f0a170628c393db3cc8ed5a9753e4c36\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003ELan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220bfcc8830f46fc5c242ff937d6274254\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Lan, was it? Righto. The amendment the member the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s proposing is inconsistent with Government policy, so we won\u2019t be supporting it. It would mean, for example, that the Government would not be able to set standards that enable significant infrastructure or enable activities that have net public benefits that would otherwise breach environmental limits, and I refer the member to clause 79, which she was talking about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn relation to Mr Xu-Nan\u2019s questions, the third one is a drafting issue between \u201Cnatural resources\u201D and \u201Cnatural environment\u201D. In relation to his second question around controlled activities, the difference is that you have to grant controlled activities whereas, with restricted discretionary activities, there are limited reasons to decline, and then the plans provide further direction in relation to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022 data-id=\u0022fe2fccbeb1af41cd40f4798701e55138\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fe2fccbeb1af41cd40f4798701e55138\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON (Green) (23:29)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much. It\u2019s great we\u2019ve got the Minister responsible for RMA Reform here. I wanted to ask about page 145, which is Part 4\u2014clause 167A, related to Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato. I never got a chance earlier in the day, but it\u2019s good that we\u2019re here now and we\u2019ve got this provision in Part 4 to explore this. The tribes of the Waikato and Waip\u0101 rivers have reached out to this side of the House. We\u2019ve enjoyed their company today\u2014great advocates, I have to say. They rolled out and shared correspondence with us that they had met with the Minister on 14 August. There were proposals that were agreed to in terms of what happened in the Planning Bill previously for Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato. I wanted to speak to this one here in clause 167A as another really good example of how the Crown has listened and has worked with iwi groupings on wording that was agreeable between parties.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ENow, what we experienced previously with the Planning Bill amendment\u2014they had understood that these agreed amendments were to be appendices to what was to be voted on, but that kind of didn\u2019t occur. Rather, it was within the bundle. I\u2019m wanting to explore with the Minister a way whereby\u2014I appreciate the advocacy of the iwi group that came together and met with us and this side of the House and their advocacy around our need to tautoko Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato and the agreed words that have been negotiated with the Minister. If the Minister would consider clauses particular to Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato being pulled out as maybe appendices to this or put it as a schedule of some sort so we can actually show some tautoko for the goodwill that the Minister has shown towards Ng\u0101ti Raukawa, Te Nehenehenui, Te Arawa, Waikato-Tainui, T\u016Bwharetoa\u2014the grouping that has been advocating for quite some time to uphold the Treaty settlement and the health and wellbeing of Waikato and Waip\u0101.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022b6b7cd500545e168fd48a28023ba5bb4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b6b7cd500545e168fd48a28023ba5bb4\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (23:31)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m pleased you had a good k\u014Drero with my good friends the river iwi. I also have enjoyed fellowship with them\u2014quite a bit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e93662843b7cc305bbf61fb750ddb4f5\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: The river elves!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f5a4a0ce7e1a129f636cddb50ae821c7\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002272587dc3dc7a0aff370337166499e26c\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: It sounds like you\u2019ve got a fellowship with the river elves.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225ab8cf8b45a4f7fac4ddffb9e7030087\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Ha, ha! Tuku Morgan\u2014Matua Morgan is Gandalf.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002274458600762c1c4dc01b8a61af24ef18\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: It must be 11.32 p.m. That was provoked. Carry on with the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eb4ca50d5ecf37e9d6179619965241c0\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: It was\u2014it was. It\u2019s in the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E now; I think the member will live to regret that one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI mean, I\u2019m not really sure what the member H\u016Bhana Lyndon is asking, because, firstly, there\u2019s no such thing as appendices in bills. There are schedules, but, to be honest, the schedules are way less prominent and significant than actual primary clauses in legislation, which become sections. I mean, we\u2019ve reached an agreement with the river iwi here in relation to Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato, as the member says. I\u2019m really proud of that, and it reflects the good-faith obligations entered into by the Crown over many years. It\u2019s there in black and white, not just in clause 167A but in a variety of other statutory provisions in the Planning Bill and, also, the Natural Environment Bill, so I think it\u2019s pretty good.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe member might want to expand a bit further, but I don\u2019t think burying it in a schedule is likely to be that\u2014well, it certainly doesn\u2019t have any legal change, for starters, and, actually, the Parliamentary Counsel Office works out what the appropriate provisions are. I\u2019m really comfortable having it in the primary bill rather than the schedules.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022 data-id=\u0022ea53afd0a62211ab829eceeb9d522e7d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ea53afd0a62211ab829eceeb9d522e7d\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON (Green) (23:33)\u003C/span\u003E: I guess I\u2019m wanting to ask for an opportunity for us to look for a way whereby we can actually vote for something in favour. It\u2019s nearly midnight, so\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fd7124d629dc36d4d0344e67ade2ec23\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: You can vote for the bill! Join the journey of change.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002241874511b2cffbd7112f3a7546ff2a24\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002223137a1c821c5d6c819be1b12fac336d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Lawrence Xu-Nan, I thought you told me you had three questions before, and you asked them. I call Lan Pham.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u0022087c27e8ae66a7c9bfc31f071f732328\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022087c27e8ae66a7c9bfc31f071f732328\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (23:34)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, thank you. I\u2019m really keen to touch on some aspects of public participation\u2014or lack of public participation, it might be. These relate to clause 146, which is about notification requirements if the previous section around mandatory public notification does not apply. I\u2019ve got Amendment Paper 720 around that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe reason why I\u2019m proposing these amendments\u2014and I\u2019m interested in the Minister responsible for RMA Reform\u2019s comments on this\u2014is that, yes, this entire framework is moving to a much more permissive and enabling framework. I can absolutely understand that. Where I\u2019m concerned about that is that, for the past few decades, where I have been involved in not only council processes but Resource Management Act processes, I\u2019ve seen it demonstrated time and time again how valuable elements of public participation can be to making good decisions. So I\u2019m really keen to offer the Minister an option in both of these clauses\u2014firstly, where public notification could be permitted if there are more than minor adverse effects on the environment. That would be the first aspect of it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second aspect, which I\u2019m proposing in clause 152, is that\u2014this bill introduces what\u2019s called, essentially, a qualifying resident test, where you can make a submission on a publicly notified application only if you are actually resident in that area. Now, what we know about the jurisdictions that we have across the country is that people\u2019s interests, people\u2019s connection to place, doesn\u2019t abide by, for example, district council or city or regional boundaries. Often, you have people who are living on the edges of whatever boundary, and the concern is that this is going to be a real barrier to their genuine participation in the places that they love, the places that they\u2019re connected to, the places they may work in and live in\u2014this is potentially a barrier.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis Amendment Paper 720 would be bringing into line what we heard so clearly from submitters, including the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, about not unduly restricting participation when it comes to public notification. It\u2019s already met those thresholds that public notification is necessary; why limit it unnecessarily to qualifying residents? I\u2019m keen to hear the Minister\u2019s response to that. Thank you, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022eac739a324efa562ede768f9557f01f4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022eac739a324efa562ede768f9557f01f4\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (23:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I was simply referring to the fact that I had three questions for that particular call. I do have more questions for this part\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f6bd3051199bd3a96a5832a650a7c74c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s a shame the member didn\u2019t clarify that at the time, but I\u2019ll let you do some final questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002233fd9acd4e779d98ab0cdb8aef2033d6\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: All right, Madam Chair. I am moving on\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022478c7d87ca4ebff40278b9e3f6b5f99f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: So am I.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225dfa537a7a77af919e051f6763702c44\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: I finished on clause 156 previously, so I\u2019m on clause\u00A0162. This is about applicants\u2019 compliance history.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I know that there was a comparable section in the Planning Bill; however, I think even in the Planning Bill, and certainly here, one of the questions we haven\u2019t asked is what happens when there have been, let\u2019s say, infringement notices or convictions, etc., if the person is overseas. In this case, it talks about convictions under this Act, but what I\u2019m not seeing in this particular bill is what happens if an applicant, whether they are a natural person or not, had comparable offences or convictions in an overseas jurisdiction. Would the permit authority need to check other things, or would that be, for example, covered under the Overseas Investment Act, etc.? I just want to check, because it occurred to me that that is something that is comparable from an overseas conviction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI am going to move on to the next clause. I\u2019m actually going to speak on my colleague Lan Pham\u2019s Amendment Paper 671. Essentially, for this particular Amendment Paper, we know that the previous clause 166 has been removed as a result, which is around precautionary principles where information is uncertain or inadequate. We just think that this section is actually quite important and should be reinserted here around the precautionary principles for consideration. I want to check with the Minister if the Minister would be open to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002274e530f593feffce5ed248eb22dfb4ef\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m sure the Minister answered\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cdb0cdfbc396556f0542827288316cf1\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: I think I had covered that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a7ad27564e10e9e3dc0539aae573abd0\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: You have covered that in clause 166? OK. In that case, ignore that question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222d79721d185b1c9ea52883c7b2bb6e89\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: If the honourable Minister wants to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022894ba90a4c1c27b4a19c338ce40a75aa\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022894ba90a4c1c27b4a19c338ce40a75aa\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (23:40)\u003C/span\u003E: It doesn\u2019t cover overseas convictions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022743a6c9254c6598665747c4f32c24e5c\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: It does?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229037613f7cdaf7cf0768cf4da30055d2\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: No, it doesn\u2019t.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002222113ac037a50dc05c7db6ff666b5a76\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, it does.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ec8ffa9b6f4321e0dfc7e68fc242c83a\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: No\u2014no. It covers what it says in the clause.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fb7da48acc820a120561e7f50cf0f1ab\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: But what happens if there\u2019s an overseas conviction?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002222782f6f42b44636a46bcb3175001206\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it\u2019s not covered is the short answer. It\u2019s not covered. I mean, I love your ability to\u2014I\u2019m thinking of rabbits and warrens and burrows, and I admire it. Even if I find it aggravating, a big part of me finds it admirable. But, as I\u2019m sure the member\u2019s discovering from his luminous committee stage debates, it cannot cover everything. It does not cover overseas convictions; maybe it should. Maybe there\u2019s an amendment to come, but it doesn\u2019t.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to Lan Pham\u2019s amendment and other discussions which I think we\u2019ve had a couple of times now around thresholds of public notifications, the significant threshold for public notification, as I said earlier, reflects a deliberate policy choice. Changing it would not align with the Government\u2019s objectives for notification. There are fewer opportunities to participate in permit processes and that\u2019s designed to encourage participation earlier in the system in national instruments and plans.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to her point around affected persons, I\u2019m advised that people out of the district or the region can still be subject to targeted notification and they can still participate, but we\u2019ve got a clear policy intent so that people in Waipukurau don\u2019t submit on things that don\u2019t have anything to do with where they live.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226aa6725740ef48a8bd0e0d084ac074fc\u0022 data-id=\u00229af74c7bffffff0fa3b6adb3fb09b78f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226aa6725740ef48a8bd0e0d084ac074fc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229af74c7bffffff0fa3b6adb3fb09b78f\u0022\u003EMILES ANDERSON (National\u2014Waitaki) (23:42)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bc6cd09c9849329d118f86ce43dc6062\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 4 set out on Amendment Paper 710 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022642cee491339589d9aec1df61fec4e61\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s tabled amendment deleting clause 128 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220d661b27ba01554d4d582144b506b947\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Lan Pham\u2019s amendment replacing clause 146(6)(a) set out on Amendment Paper 720 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ba3656271bf6e7f6d1dd0c88f85a1e92\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Lan Pham\u2019s amendment replacing clause\u00A0152(1) set out on Amendment Paper 719 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u2019s amendment to clause 156(1) set out on Amendment Paper 681 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u2019s amendments to clauses 164 and 164A set out on Amendment Paper 683 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendments deleting clauses 164(1)(c)(i) and 164A set out on Amendment Paper 747 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Lan Pham\u2019s amendment inserting clause 166 set out on Amendment Paper 671 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002241b0b4e8f0843d7a13621fbde9f95bef\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendment inserting new subpart 7 of Part 4 set out on Amendment Paper 746 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Part 4 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 4 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00221f804ff89d47761a263e17001dd8dcf5\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e3c434cd7ed0aa2b23e980952b4d4c98\u0022\u003EPart 5 Key roles\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ffa0e8bc4feb243b518a4c92a0314491\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to Part 5, which is the debate on clauses 215 to 241, \u201CKey roles\u201D. The question is that Part 5 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u002248d558aac852dd927f924d4d17b7336e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002248d558aac852dd927f924d4d17b7336e\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (23:49)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m really interested in going to new clause 219A, in Amendment Paper 710. This is about the delegation of functions by the Minister to the Environmental Protection Authority. This is about the function to actually monitor the implementation and effectiveness of this Act, and that includes regulations in force under it and national instruments. I\u2019m really interested to hear from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, because I was quite surprised to see this clause in here. It is a new clause that has come in in the Government\u2019s last-minute amendments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022285313ec4a9b4080a6eb98f42b9a65f7\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: Which clause?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d67d499c3c7d8c5ddd505150a25887bd\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM\u003C/span\u003E: Clause 219A, on page 174. Why I\u2019m interested in this is because earlier\u2014and I can\u2019t remember where in the bill, but earlier in the bill\u2014there is a function for the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport to assess the effectiveness and the efficiency of the bills. I\u2019m interested as to what the differences are here, because there\u2019s very little detail, and when you\u2019re sort of further splitting these things across both MCERT and the Environmental Protection Authority, I think it would be really helpful to understand, particularly when it comes to the assessment of the effectiveness and implementation, why there has been this division and where they have landed on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022f694d6f4e398a46a40f304c92b671128\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f694d6f4e398a46a40f304c92b671128\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (23:50)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m advised it\u2019s a carry-over from the Resource Management Act (RMA), so it just clarifies the delegation to the Environmental Protection Authority. It\u2019s a carry-over from existing provisions in the RMA.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u0022d51562680d874c320a1c0593d22405d8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d51562680d874c320a1c0593d22405d8\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (23:50)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m interested in that, because is that, therefore, unnecessary duplication? Like, what is actually the function of this versus what the chief executive of the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport has now been tasked with in quite some detail about the functions and efficiencies? I think that, if there is going to be this role for the Environmental Protection Authority\u2014which, again, is another agency that we know is under considerable constraints\u2014why? I think we should be able to answer that and understand that, rather than just chuck it in here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00220110e4bd47e355ebefdc0f9207f01ec5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220110e4bd47e355ebefdc0f9207f01ec5\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (23:51)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m moving further forward, and this is related to the transfer of powers\u2014wherever that is\u2014at clause 232. I\u2019m on page 179 of the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper 710. I want to talk briefly about the transfer of powers and the joint management agreements, and then iwi participation agreements. These are at the back end of Part 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFor a long time, there have been these provisions\u2014section 33 and the joint management provisions in the Resource Management Act\u2014that can include going to an iwi authority. Now, they\u2019re not included in these powers before us. That\u2019s gone. Also, the Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe agreements that are more recent, that came in under the Hon\u00A0Nick Smith, are also gone. The Minister will say the legislation has changed remarkably after the select committee process happened\u2014he came to think that\u2014but the iwi participation agreements are now included.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo, simple question: do the iwi participation agreements allow for the equivalent of section 33 of the Resource Management Act transfer of powers, now in clause 232, and joint management agreements in clause 236? It\u2019s a simple question; I think I know the answer, and it\u2019s a very sad day.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00224648a8775d79c2b04ac5e55507e4a7b1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224648a8775d79c2b04ac5e55507e4a7b1\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (23:53)\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, I\u2019ve just dropped my good blue pen. My apologies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225d7a4797ecdf8e5dd861f4c2ccfbf44b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Do you want one?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022759b405666e4c394c1f733879a1e1b78\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: No, no, I\u2019m good. Thank you. In relation to clause 219A, I\u2019m not really sure what the member Lan Pham\u2019s getting at. Clause 219A is a carry-over from the Resource Management Act. It\u2019s a \u201Cmay\u201D, it\u2019s not a \u201Cmust\u201D; it\u2019s a \u201Cmay delegate to the EPA\u201D. It needs to be read in the light of clause 219, which is the delegation of functions by Ministers and chief executives. Both of these provisions are standard provisions when it comes to complicated statutory schemes and regulatory schemes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn relation to Rachel Brooking\u2019s question, she is right that iwi authorities are excluded from the transfer of powers, and no, the answer is that iwi participation agreements cannot authorise the transfer of powers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229817e04b9cd292d0dc70f2bd194da2ce\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2014very short one. I\u2019m just looking at the clock, because some of us have to go to bed, and you have to write more policy! I\u2019ll take a quick question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022344728ba936334e6376a3c60d8038061\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022344728ba936334e6376a3c60d8038061\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (23:54)\u003C/span\u003E: OK. Just following on from the previous question, I want to check, in this case, just clarifying: with the joint committee appointed under clause 30 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002\u2014so this is clause 231(c). This might be a basic question: are they elected, or can they also be appointed?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00223bc1c7a24d5a1fc72208d2f7f530037b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223bc1c7a24d5a1fc72208d2f7f530037b\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (23:54)\u003C/span\u003E: No, they\u2019re elected.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b7b8962bc55fe79d324952568271ab19\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterItalicsCentred\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 11.55 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Friday)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00228ab059c5977dd73a50389c7eeb6b2f69\u0022\u003EUrgency\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00224275150e90c28624994b0d7040c510f5\u0022\u003EFriday, 28 August 2025\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002246e31ce6c03df98320834ac12ea26202\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00221a0b7d9b925df3ab95a943fd141fda28\u0022\u003ENatural Environment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00220f097d660152001f19b9dc45668e1e1e\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005296\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u00221888e10a2bc273b312b1941d912bb614\u0022\u003EPart 5 Key roles (continued)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002212eede64ed1ee4e872b4605a57e8659b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Good morning, members. The committee is resumed. When we suspended last night, we were considering Part 5 of the Natural Environment Bill. It wasn\u2019t that long ago. This is the debate on clauses 215 to 241, \u201CKey roles\u201D. Once again, the question is that Part 5 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022be98099728d230b4015a1b06518c7d0a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022be98099728d230b4015a1b06518c7d0a\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (09:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m interested in the way that the joint management agreements and iwi participation agreements work together. There are a number of questions that I have about them in this part, but I\u2019ll start with clause 236, on page 181. I hope the member in the chair will be able to flip back and forth on this, but this is sort of the centre of it, so I\u2019ll start here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe first question is, really: under clause 236, the formulation of joint management agreements is similar to the one in the Resource Management Act, but obviously the Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe agreements are very, very different\u2014can an iwi enter into a joint management agreement with a local authority?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022dd4a0a40fafa96883afcc990a1f8ad23\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dd4a0a40fafa96883afcc990a1f8ad23\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:01)\u003C/span\u003E: Joint management agreements are provided for in Treaty settlements, and where they are provided for in settlements, this is the process set out in clause\u00A0236.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022e25d774145099cd19292b391f5643213\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e25d774145099cd19292b391f5643213\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (09:01)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. That\u2019s right, and we canvassed a little bit of that in the committee last night, and the reason why I raise it again is because \u201Cjoint management agreements\u201D are the words that are used in some Treaty settlements, but, obviously, the ordinary words \u201Cjoint management agreement\u201D\u2014I can enter into that with the member in the chair, Simon Court. There are no protected words for what a \u201Cjoint management agreement\u201D means. For the sake of this Act, it\u2019s set out what a joint management agreement can do in the Act, but there\u2019s no restriction on what you can call a \u201Cjoint management agreement\u201D. I want the member in the chair to clarify: is there a protection for use of public power in that kind of joint management agreement? It also goes to the question of whether you can enter into a joint management with, say, a group of developers, which, on the natural reading of this, you can; it\u2019s just that no authorities have.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI guess, when you get down into the points around how you can use a joint management agreement and how it\u2019s different from the iwi participation agreements, that becomes really relevant for a lot of the groups of iwi that already have established arrangements with councils to enter into what they already have, essentially, with councils and not to go through the iwi participation agreement process. A joint management agreement could allow a vehicle for new groups of iwi to be able to do that. It doesn\u2019t seem to be connected in the legislation to someone who has been granted by the Crown a legitimate public interest in having a joint management agreement with a local authority. It just seems to be, on this formulation, anyone who can enter into that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy other question about the iwi participation agreements, just to start this off, is the way that clause 237 applies. This also seems to support the reading that a local authority could exercise some of its functions before entering into a joint management agreement with iwi on its own. The way that clause 237 is formulated seems to suggest that we\u2019ve got this use of public power, so it\u2019s appropriate that a local authority would be able to exercise that on its own and therefore make sure that it\u2019s a sort of special formulation of how you use the joint management agreement in a planning context. It would be good to start there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022697172ff891de6df2e0cf2e1827314de\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022697172ff891de6df2e0cf2e1827314de\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:03)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll attempt to answer fulsomely. I\u2019ve been advised that there is no interaction whatsoever between joint management agreements provided for as part of specific Treaty settlements and iwi participation agreements, which are set out in clause 237A.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIf I intimate what the member Arena Williams is getting at around joint management agreements and other public agencies, that is provided for not as a joint management agreement but, in clause 232, as \u201CTransfer of powers\u201D. It\u2019s been described to me during the policy development process that if, for example, a regional council had a small area of reserve near the Department of Conservation estate, potentially the responsibility for managing that could be transferred, say, to the Department of Conservation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022618e3ed1393ed6a243983623c8de7d5b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022618e3ed1393ed6a243983623c8de7d5b\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (09:04)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one more question on how these powers work together. That was what I was asking: would it be illegal or unlawful for the council to enter into a joint management agreement with an iwi that had a schedule that said they were to enter into a joint management agreement in their Treaty settlement? I think the answer was no, but you would have to comply with clause 232, which is the \u201CTransfer of powers\u201D provision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIf you could transfer the powers to a body that could deal with public powers, you would be able to do that. This is for local authorities to transfer a power fully, and I assume that\u2019s also delegations\u2014delegations is at clause 233. But, if you\u2019ve got the local authority still overseeing the exercise of that power and signing it off, you don\u2019t have a transfer, you don\u2019t have a delegation; you have something in the middle, which is what I\u2019m asking about with joint participation agreements.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002287a7c36d90984e2db15d8f12c65f36fc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002287a7c36d90984e2db15d8f12c65f36fc\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Joint management agreements are provided in specific Treaty settlements. Clause 236 sets out the local authority\u2019s role if they are required by provisions in a Treaty settlement to enter into a joint management agreement. There\u2019s no anticipation that joint management agreements are available to others\u2014only as it relates to specific provisions in specific Treaty settlements.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022 data-id=\u00227d9211653bf8a0d61a66d0fe70b439bb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227d9211653bf8a0d61a66d0fe70b439bb\u0022\u003EVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (09:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. To the member Simon Court: I also have a question about delegations but in relation to a different clause, clause 232, \u201CTransfer of powers\u201D. This is where a regional council can transfer its powers to, essentially, any other public authority, in accordance with that clause. Clauses 232, 233, and 234 all refer to that delegation of power to others, essentially, the effect of that, and that being the same as if the regional council were effecting those powers itself. There\u2019s no statement about a residual duty that exists with the regional council itself.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019m just wondering whether there was consideration of that overarching governance statement that, ultimately, the duty still lies with the regional council. There is the power to revoke or alter the delegation, but, really, my view is that it would be useful to state that explicitly. In clause 232(3), it talks about the revocation of duty, and subclause (4) talks about the delegated authority or delegated individual being able to relinquish the transfer, but there\u2019s no statement about the regional council automatically assuming that function again. It\u2019s just, really, a question of being crystal clear about who holds the duty, the residual powers, and what happens when that duty is relinquished.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00224410ff7fc822604f13c3e675055a203e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224410ff7fc822604f13c3e675055a203e\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:08)\u003C/span\u003E: The member Vanushi Walters is absolutely correct. \u201CTransfer of powers\u201D, clause 232, does allow regional council to \u201Ctransfer any of its functions, powers, or duties under this Act to another public authority in accordance with this section.\u201D I think, if they\u2019re not specifically transferred, if it\u2019s not explicit what has been transferred, it should be safely assumed that the regional council retains responsibility for all the matters, apart from what is specifically transferred or delegated in the clauses that she\u2019s described.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u00227c6f185ceb3e3570920da932191f1ad1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227c6f185ceb3e3570920da932191f1ad1\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (09:08)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m really pleased to pick up on the iwi participation agreements as well, noting that this is an entirely new clause and was a significant change even from where the select committee had got to. When the report back from committee came, Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe were still going to be upheld; they were going to be transitioned into the new system. Then it was announced within hours that they would be scrapped and these iwi participation agreements would be in place. I\u2019m really interested to hear from the member Simon Court how many Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe agreements were in place and how many were initiated. Then, also, the rationale behind this is that they can transfer into this new system. But I\u2019m particularly interested in the Crown\u2019s obligations when it comes to not only Te Tiriti but particularly under Treaty settlements, how, I guess, reliable and what does the member see the value of these being? Because I\u2019m noting, particularly in clause 237D, when it comes to the termination or renegotiation of iwi participation agreements, iwi can give written notice at any time, wanting to withdraw, but the same goes for local authorities seeking to renegotiate their own involvement in an iwi participation agreement at any time. Now, what is the difference between the relative stability or a framework around Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe compared to this new section?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI think why I\u2019m particularly keen in understanding that is because there was so much emphasis and there\u2019s been so much said by iwi M\u0101ori or hap\u016B who\u2019ve been part of these Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe agreements about how they finally have\u2014or had, rather\u2014not only transparency for the public about how they were working in the roles and responsibilities and how they were working with councils but they also felt a sense of stability and clarity about what those roles were and that they would continue in perpetuity. So I\u2019m really interested to hear from the member about those things particularly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022a49185e5be89e09a6f6b28a296ab9fb6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a49185e5be89e09a6f6b28a296ab9fb6\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:11)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. The member Lan Pham had a number of questions. In answer to the member\u2019s question about how many Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe arrangements had been established, that number was eight. In response to the member\u2019s question of how many were initiated, it\u2019s been publicly reported that Horizons Regional Council have stated that 11 were initiated in the period after the Natural Environment Bill and Planning Bill were introduced, which did not provide for new agreements in the new system, but we estimate that there are dozens more.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe member had a question around stability: how stable is an iwi participation agreement compared to Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe? Well, under the Resource Management Act, which is the legislation that we will be repealing when this legislation passes, Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe could be initiated at any time by any iwi. They are related to the scope of the Resource Management Act, and sometimes they went well beyond that, as in case of the Northland District Council\u2019s Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe arrangement with Ng\u0101puhi, which provided for Northland District Council agreeing with Ng\u0101puhi that they never ceded sovereignty to the Crown. So one of the issues with the Ng\u0101puhi agreements is that while they were provided for in the Resource Management Act, they were not tightly scoped and they certainly have been very difficult\u2014the existing ones, or any initiated ones\u2014to port into the new system, given expectations. As the member rightly point out, the expectations around Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe arrangements enduring\u2014because in the old system if an iwi asked for them, council could not say no. So we have been very specific about what we intend for iwi participation agreements in the new system: that they are voluntary agreements, to be entered into by iwi that seek such an agreement; councils have the ability to negotiate the terms and conditions, but they must be very tightly scoped to the scope of the legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022 data-id=\u0022541b694ba97c93d956797960ef869cb0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022541b694ba97c93d956797960ef869cb0\u0022\u003EVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (09:14)\u003C/span\u003E: I just wanted to respond to the Minister\u2019s answer to my earlier question on the transfer of powers in clauses 232, 233, and 234. He made the point that if a power is delegated, that power is delegated but the regional council retains all other powers. My question was more about whether there exists a residual duty\u2014whether even if a council is delegating a particular power, given it\u2019s the primary duty-holder under the statue, it holds a residual duty. That\u2019s question one; the second question was whether, if it does so, that should be articulated in the legislation. My view is they do hold that residual duty and that should whoever they\u2019ve delegated that power to not comply with the statute, they actually have the primary obligation then to revoke that delegation. So I just want to make that clear.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe second thing was on clause 235. This is about the scope of delegation to employees and the hearings commissioner. The scope of delegations are extremely broad: it is \u201Cany function, power, or duty\u201D. My question is whether there was consideration of whether there should be a line drawn between powers that can be delegated\u2014some sort of line drawing\u2014and where it\u2019s contested whether something will have a minor to a mid-level impact on the environment\u2014for example, where there might be substantial opposition to a particular plan or plan change\u2014whether that should more appropriately be held with the primary decision-maker under legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022d022b6ac4cf11935dbb452170b3bf889\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d022b6ac4cf11935dbb452170b3bf889\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:16)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam chair, if I could just respond very briefly. Thank you for the member\u2019s question. Look, the transfer document will set out the individual arrangements, including the specificity about what each party is ultimately responsible for. So I cast forward to what might be in such an agreement, but we can safely assume that legal obligations will be set out very, very precisely.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn response to the member\u2019s question around delegation to employees and others, and her question around whether decision making around matters that could lead to environmental effects\u2014it\u2019s quite clear under clause 235(3)(b) that a regional council may not delegate a decision on an application for a natural resource permit. That\u2019s because those matters are reserved for council.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u00226fa894bf1142b80eb55fee8187c41517\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226fa894bf1142b80eb55fee8187c41517\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (09:17)\u003C/span\u003E: Just a follow-up on that question. To the member in the chair, Simon Court, you can cast forward because the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill, which the Government is progressing right now, would change Schedule 7 of that Act at clause 31 to make an amendment, which would mean that delegations to employees were very different from the general resource management system, and mean that employees can\u2019t, say, serve on committees, which effectively is the problem here. Why don\u2019t the current rules from the Natural Environment Bill set this out, when things like Auckland Council\u2014big place\u2014has to make 300 decisions every week, I am told, in the transport and access space. Some of these are environmental decisions, like discharge from roads into drain water of stormwater, and things like oil contaminants. They have to make so many decisions that, essentially, that committee meets every Friday\u2014I know this from the Regulations Review Committee considering it this year. That has to be a committee of employees because I do not want for my council colleagues to have to sit through that every Friday\u2014Mr Court, are you going to make them?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhy doesn\u2019t this bill take the opportunity to update the delegations functions in a sensible way, to reflect that kind of decision making which is appropriately done by elected members and sometimes will be appropriately delegated to employees, in a more specified way? Because the problem is that relying on the old resource management provisions doesn\u2019t allow for mega-councils like Auckland, and it also doesn\u2019t serve the very small councils, which I understand the Government is trying to encourage to be more efficient. It is inefficient to have a committee of fully elected members making the sorts of environmental decisions which affect a particular street or a particular home. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe delegation functions are important, and then they\u2019re also important to the joint management agreements, because the joint management agreements can delegate to a joint management committee. Under the old system, the other local government powers that went along with those meant that you wouldn\u2019t have been able to enter into a joint management agreement with a group of developers, but under the new formulation, that is possible. Is it possible to enter into a joint management agreement with a group of developers and delegate functions to it? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022efa8829cee3e5af7a64e97cd9b5c6b43\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022efa8829cee3e5af7a64e97cd9b5c6b43\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:19)\u003C/span\u003E: No. In answer to the second part of the member Arena Williams\u2019 question, joint management agreements are provided for in specific Treaty settlements. I\u2019ve already answered that; happy to clarify. In response to the member\u2019s question around delegation to employees and others, the member\u2019s question\u2014actually, a very valid question\u2014we certainly don\u2019t want elected members\u2019 time taken up responding to traffic matters or trying to work out which potholes should be filled in what order. Absolutely not. That is why, in the context of the Natural Environment Bill, under clause 235, \u201CDelegation to Employees and others\u201D, \u201C(1) A regional council may delegate to an employee or a hearings commissioner \u2026 any function, power, or duty under this Act except\u2014(a) the power to approve a regional spatial plan, natural environment plan, or plan change \u2026 or (b) this power of delegation.\u201D But it remains available to them to delegate other matters\u2014say, to a processing planner as a council employee to carry out certain functions and duties under this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWe do not want elected members having to be involved in making individual consent conditions. That might have been\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220dde7b841657ff4636b9c9c35f14ee07\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: I sort of want to do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f63c0be85432774fc36fc431fa877b53\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: I think it might have been envisaged, and certainly possible, under the Resource Management Act (RMA), when it was passed in 1991. But given that New Zealand\u2019s volume of consents has swelled from about 5,000 a year, when I first started grappling with the RMA as a young engineer in 1996, to over 40,000 consents demanded of Kiwis at the latest peak of the building boom a couple of years ago, I can\u2019t imagine councillors around the country being able to process and get their heads around and get 40,000 consents out the door. In saying that, if we can get back to the number of consents in the 1990s of 5,000 or less, maybe elected members would be able to turn their minds to that. But that\u2019s not envisaged here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022 data-id=\u0022e7a9557cac17223f94d1e8f582b03d9f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e7a9557cac17223f94d1e8f582b03d9f\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (09:21)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. It\u2019s a pleasure to take my first call\u2014actually, my first call on the Natural Environment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225a8f503cb29d8c9807dac90a515e99a9\u0022\u003EHon Members: \u003C/span\u003EOh!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002228775231a8074071aafcb66e0ae85137\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve joined the party.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227d19573a8ba4d8283b17374978c8ea2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a089ed4d4d5a81230a6b571d6a9f3802\u0022\u003EGrant McCallum\u003C/span\u003E: Where have you been?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ecb08c88e3ae6dabecffa795ec3127bb\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve been watching\u2014I\u2019ve been watching.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI have a question on clause 237A, on the iwi participation agreements and subclause (3) around the hap\u016B. We know, obviously, that hap\u016B vary in size across the motu. I look down to Canterbury and the mighty Ng\u0101i T\u016B\u0101huriri, who have a hap\u016B where their takiw\u0101 stretches, from the Hurunui down to the Ashburton River and inland to the Southern Alps.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen we look at the reorganisation that is going on, there is the potential that, actually, a unitary authority may completely sit within its takiw\u0101 by itself. So I do question why they have to sit alongside any agreement of an iwi authority and cannot, in their own right, have a participation agreement with a council.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI raise that question because we know, actually, that it\u2019s the hap\u016B that make iwi exist, and therefore we should actually be trying to create that mana to mana relationship from hap\u016B to councils when, actually, there is only one hap\u016B that sits with a council. It does concern me, that, actually, we have a clause in there that says, yep, hap\u016B can be involved, but they have to join as party to an iwi participation agreement, so they are therefore excluded from having a direct relationship with the local authorities. I\u2019m wondering whether you\u2019d consider changing that to enable hap\u016B to have the ability to have relationships that don\u2019t sit alongside iwi authorities but that are, actually, directly with the local authorities instead.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022d3ee5aad3de926854e907ffbf9aaa030\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d3ee5aad3de926854e907ffbf9aaa030\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:23)\u003C/span\u003E: The member raises a good point, and that is why the legislation provides, at clause 237A(3), that \u201CHap\u016B may join as parties to an iwi participation agreement alongside the relevant \u2026 authorities.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u0022cb2dc7a4e73c354b7c6f737e0443150d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cb2dc7a4e73c354b7c6f737e0443150d\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (09:24)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just two brief questions following up from the member Simon Court\u2019s responses to my last questions on iwi participation agreements. The first was just a clarification: he mentioned that the Horizons council had said there were 11 Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe agreements that had been initiated. Is that purely for the Manawat\u016B region?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAnd then, secondly, he mentioned about the Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe agreement with, I assume, the Far North District Council, and he talked about the scope of the agreements and how Ng\u0101puhi have, for example, put in that that they hadn\u2019t ceded sovereignty. Is it the member\u2019s understanding and does he contemplate that with these iwi participation agreements, it would be entirely appropriate\u2014and, actually, some would think, necessary\u2014for the iwi and hap\u016B that are involved to actually outline very key statements like that that are absolutely based on historical fact, in order to frame the iwi participation agreement? Like, if he\u2019s saying that that kind of thing is out of scope, then what is the basis of these participation agreements?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00224844fe256700d24c7ca8e3a57f18b3e3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224844fe256700d24c7ca8e3a57f18b3e3\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:25)\u003C/span\u003E: In response to the member Lam Pham\u2019s question around Horizons Manawat\u016B, it has been reported\u2014and I have read it with my very own eyes, but I can\u2019t verify the reports, because it\u2019s in the mainstream media\u2014that 11-month Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe arrangements were initiated, so I would invite the member to have a look at her media feed\u2014there will be reports of that; I\u2019ve seen them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of the content of iwi participation agreements under clause 237C, it is set out what should be included, but with respect to the Far North District Council entering into an agreement with a group that claims that they never ceded sovereignty to the Crown, I just need to remind all New Zealanders that the Crown is sovereign in New Zealand, and we have laws, and every New Zealander is subject to the same laws, and should expect equal treatment before the law. But if we entertain the notion that some groups haven\u2019t ceded sovereignty and are not subject to the laws of the land, then we will descend into anarchy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis Government will not allow New Zealand to break up into anarchic little sub-regions where people claim the Government doesn\u2019t have sovereignty. How on earth the Far North District Council thought it was appropriate to pull into an agreement relating to the Resource Management Act\u2014I can\u2019t see into their minds, and it\u2019s probably because there\u2019s not much in there; it\u2019s a dark space.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u0022a3bf420a89c3b7e3ea1a5126d0f06744\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a3bf420a89c3b7e3ea1a5126d0f06744\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (09:27)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. In response, just a quick question as follow-up. Given that the Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe agreement has been entered into and the Far North hasn\u2019t entered into anarchy, what evidential basis is the member actually basing those comments on?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022 data-id=\u0022ef6c3c9f027b7787ce274c616621e111\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ef6c3c9f027b7787ce274c616621e111\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (09:27)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to go back to my questioning line from before, because I do not feel the member in the chair, Simon Court, actually answered my question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220e2278db98103e9c8df3ced3625ef529\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The member addressed your question, so if you\u2019re going to ask the question, I\u2019d advise against it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022 data-id=\u002221d93d80a6483ff726748225385d3104\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002221d93d80a6483ff726748225385d3104\u0022\u003EVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (09:27)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question on liability and, specifically, shared duties and how that translates into shared liability or not\u2014this is clause 236, the joint management agreements. Under subclause (2), it says \u201CA decision made under a joint management agreement has legal effect as a decision of a regional council.\u201D I\u2019m just wondering about where liability sits if anything under those agreements is challenged in law. Is it treated as a breach of duty by the regional council according to subclause (2)? If the management agreement itself says that liability will be shared because the duties are shared, then does that alter where liability sits? If the management agreement is silent as to whether the duty stands, does that mean that subclause (2) takes effect or that there is an automatic split so anyone raising a complaint could raise it against both? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022f911fb6bb8deeefc0fc99560d3e6f382\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f911fb6bb8deeefc0fc99560d3e6f382\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:29)\u003C/span\u003E: The agreements can only be entered into in the context of law. I urge the member to refer, again, to clause 237C, \u201CContent of iwi participation agreements\u201D. If councils are not following the law, of course they are open to challenge.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022 data-id=\u00220f7c631ef1f904a78903dec290d6a914\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220f7c631ef1f904a78903dec290d6a914\u0022\u003ETOM RUTHERFORD (National\u2014Bay of Plenty) (09:29)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002245c487f70bccc5e0f6d5e9046f5964e4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s amendment to Amendment Paper 710 deleting clause 219(1)(f) set out on Amendment Paper 752 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 5 set out on Amendment Paper 710 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Part 5 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 5 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022dd452126f3f2f3be1c1457bb43eb8345\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u00223956616256cf9916574c69443bb9a8a8\u0022\u003EPart 6 Enforcement and other matters\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cf7c52b8026331a43f2053f312f9ea94\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to Part 6. This is the debate on clauses 243 to 332, \u201CEnforcement and other matters\u201D. The question is that Part 6 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00220c7f2a5e9b54b5ad99da5499ca8d94f2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220c7f2a5e9b54b5ad99da5499ca8d94f2\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (09:32)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a very important part of the bill because it goes to enforcement, and we know with any regulatory regime that it doesn\u2019t work if there\u2019s no enforcement. That\u2019s what Part 6 is about. Yeah, I don\u2019t believe there are any schedules related to Part 6, so it\u2019s just Part 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, on the big Amendment Paper that we have\u2014Amendment Paper 710\u2014there is a lot of crossing out about the role of the EPA. The EPA is the Environmental Protection Authority. There\u2019s lots and lots crossed out. My question is a very simple one: it is for the member in the chair, the Hon Simon Court, to explain what has happened. Is it that the crossed out parts are all put back in later on at clause 273A, and, in fact there\u2019s no policy change, or is there a policy change? If so, can the member take us through what that is?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhilst we\u2019re waiting for the member, then, I\u2019ll keep talking. I\u2019ll keep talking if I can, if I\u2019ve got any voice left. Let\u2019s go through to declarations. Now, declarations have always been an important part of the resource management system because, of course, you can apply to the Environment Court for a declaration. I guess the question here is to be clear that it is only the Environment Court that can make a declaration rather than the newly formed planning tribunal. That is because the planning tribunal is there to work with more nuts and bolts issues, but a bigger issue such as a declaration needs to be from the court. We heard in another part of another related bill that there can be 10 Environment Court judges, so that is the place for the declaration. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI guess another question on declarations would be whether or not the member anticipates the need for more declarations with this new legislation and if he thinks that declarations would apply and, indeed, if they could be a useful tool. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00229159ee4469b1bd77128593b72c868327\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229159ee4469b1bd77128593b72c868327\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:35)\u003C/span\u003E: Just in response to the member Rachel Brooking\u2019s questions around the deletions at the start of Part 6, from old clause 243 onwards, I\u2019m advised that from clauses 243 to 252, those provisions have been deleted and moved to subsequent clauses from around about 237, so they are retained. It\u2019s just making sure that we work through the process, getting the report back from the Environment Committee and identifying ways that we could make the bill more efficient if they have been moved.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022a9f581b0b2fa5c2b7c57a4043265bc22\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a9f581b0b2fa5c2b7c57a4043265bc22\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (09:35)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask about the enforcement orders provisions. These are clauses 258 to 265. The first question is about the serial offenders provisions that are earlier in the bill. But we\u2019ve got the old formulation of clause 258(6), which was sort of the old and only power to deal with serial offenders, which now seems a bit heavy-handed because you\u2019ve got the other powers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to ask whether that\u2019s deliberate to keep that in there and whether it should go because, essentially, the question is why should an enforcement order relating to non-compliance in one sense then mean that the Environment Court can revoke a different permit? If you have a factory that\u2019s discharging into the Manukau Harbour and has breached its discharge permit, why should the Environment Court also be able to take away its water take permit? Under the old system, that was kind of the only enforcement mechanism that that factory would have had if it was constantly breaching its discharge conditions, but that would, effectively, shut the factory down. Under the old system, the Environment Court didn\u2019t have to have regard to all of the things that it now does around economic development, but it does now. That power seems to be something which needed to exist under the old system, but shouldn\u2019t any more.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 259, \u201CCompliance with the enforcement order\u201D: now, this is where you might update this for serial offenders, because the serial offenders provisions leave, say, abatement notices out of the scheme. If you\u2019ve been a serial offender but you\u2019ve had a number of abatement notices, those don\u2019t count towards your kind of tally of being a bad guy who won\u2019t get a new one. That doesn\u2019t make sense any more if enforcement orders like this should also be in that zone. If you\u2019ve had an enforcement order against you, you should need to comply with that. I just want to check with the member Simon Court whether enforcement orders go to your tally. Usually, we\u2019re getting there from, say in the water discharge context, having done that several times, having the abatement notices, and then having the enforcement. It is at a higher level than just an abatement notice and we want to put it in there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00220046f7370715d9ad4714204f0f66a4c8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220046f7370715d9ad4714204f0f66a4c8\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:38)\u003C/span\u003E: I appreciate the member Arena Williams\u2019 deep and broad understanding of regulation, but at this late stage we will not be accepting any further amendments to the legislation from the Opposition.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn answer to the member Rachel Brooking\u2019s question about can the planning tribunal make\u2014oh, sorry, it could have been actually, forgive me, the member Arena Williams\u2019 question about\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022be516b88d9a8032c3809860f3df05ff5\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: It was mine.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224127393cb4dc5d74e6e4bc2e190a2a15\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, it was Rachel Brooking; thank you. Can the planning tribunal make a declaration or enforcement? No, only the Environment Court, but the planning tribunal can make a declaration on consent conditions. In response to the member Arena Williams\u2019 question about revocation and whether, say, a permit that\u2019s been revoked for some egregious breaches\u2014she described a factory discharging into the Manukau Harbour. I certainly do remember as a young environmental engineer, when it was cool to be environmental, visiting premises that might have been described as having egregious discharges and monitoring those. I\u2019m familiar with how bad that was. The legislation provides for revocation only for the most egregious offending. The member\u2019s question was, well, if revoking the discharge permit is sufficient to stop the breach or the harm, why should the court have discretion to revoke other permits? Well, the court does have discretion to respond to facts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u0022dcf72fc906cd860c91ede68466e026cb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dcf72fc906cd860c91ede68466e026cb\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (09:39)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to pick up on a very substantive part of Part 6, and that is around natural resource levies. That is clauses\u00A0313 onwards, on pages 244. This was an area that, when it was first introduced, held a lot of promise, and it held a lot of promise because there is so much amazing work that is going on, particularly at the catchment scale, where groups of farmers and landowners are able to come together, often with the wider community, with iwi and hap\u016B, and actually make progress in the areas where they live, particularly in terms of figuring out ways to improve the environment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ENow, what is really disappointing, then, are the changes that were made by the Government to limit these clauses. When we know that this whole system is moving towards a much more permissive framework\u2014that there will be the reliance particularly on freshwater farm plans, an area which we were unable to examine even though there have been substantive changes\u2014those are the areas where the actual changes are meant to happen. Now, unfortunately, the Government has come in and amended the natural resource levies to limit the ability for councils to use this framework to actually support and fund the administration of catchment groups.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a66be9c3c863c5f4b996e0f6256047ac\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Is there a question?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b5fcfc40c9be3ea5688646cdf2fc8d44\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM\u003C/span\u003E: My question is: when this was the entire intent\u2014catchment groups being able to take much more control of the situation given the hugely permissive nature of this new legislation\u2014why did it make sense to the Government to then limit that when it comes to catchment groups?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI know from being on the select committee that there was appetite from select committee members, particularly those of the Government in the farming sector, to enable this, and yet it was limited. Why was it limited? What is actually envisaged when we have things like the rates cap on councils to actually fund and enable catchment groups to work together?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022ffe926f1a96d92a38c72f2e4cb808a59\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ffe926f1a96d92a38c72f2e4cb808a59\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:42)\u003C/span\u003E: I appreciate the member Lan Pham understands well the role of catchment groups and the benefits that they bring to communities. I\u2019ve been and visited farms where catchment groups have delivered some fantastic improvements to the natural environment. They are some of our best people: farmers and growers who get together voluntarily, using their own resources and time, to restore the natural environment, in a complementary way to primary production activities. It\u2019s a wonderful example of how pioneering New Zealanders can organise themselves to achieve both economic and environmental objectives.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo the member\u2019s question\u2014\u201CWhy have the levy arrangements been changed?\u201D\u2014well, the changes respond to concerns that levies could be used to fund wider resource management costs than what was originally intended, and we don\u2019t want to charge resource users to pay someone to tell them how to do their job.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo the question around why levies can\u2019t fund catchment groups, well, catchment groups are not a defined term under the Natural Environment Bill, so enabling levies to fund catchment groups could allow a wide and potentially poorly controlled use of funds. Levies must be to fund specific functions or objectives set out in legislation and subsequent instruments. Catchment groups are not restricted to functions or objectives set out in legislation, and we have no wish to define what a catchment group is or can or can\u2019t do; that would potentially impact on their grassroots nature and the good work they do. We are being very careful to make sure that this is a narrow levy to fund specific costs, rather than a tax.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022c4a943a37968d203018127e4898fd32d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c4a943a37968d203018127e4898fd32d\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (09:44)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I have just two very little questions\u2014one is just thinking about what the member Simon Court was saying about the levies, then, and what they can be used for, and that they are narrow and not a tax. I noticed that he emphasised that point. Where does he see the levy-setting fit with the comments he was making last night about environmental limits and the cost benefit and the costs and the community paying? We had an exchange last night, and I was more focused on ratepayers, because, of course, we all know that this Government loves putting more work on rates on councils, but if he can comment on where he sees levies fitting with it, that would be useful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThen my second question, which is a very small question, but is, I think, quite delightful, is whether the member can confirm for me, in Subpart 3, \u201CRegulations\u201D\u2014clause\u00A0307 is \u201CRegulations\u201D, and if you turn over to page 234, at paragraph (f) it says, \u201Cspecifying the offences under this Act (including offences prescribed under paragraph\u00A0(x)) \u2026\u201D. I thought, when I first looked at this, \u201COh, my goodness, what has happened to PCO? Why are they just putting Xs everywhere? Is that something that they need to come back for?\u201D But in fact\u2014in fact\u2014there is a paragraph (x). If he can just confirm that it is just a delight that we don\u2019t normally often see Xs in legislation, but here we go\u2014here we are.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022c8f4655db3bf09c24f5663a348611a9a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c8f4655db3bf09c24f5663a348611a9a\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:46)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member the Hon Rachel Brooking for her diligence as a parliamentarian for having detected what may well be a drafting error. I\u2019m sure I will get advice from officials on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBefore I get to the member\u2019s question around the use of levies in relation to limits, I just want to advise the committee\u2014if the committee hasn\u2019t been advised prior and in good faith, with regard to Minister Bishop\u2019s commitment to tell the committee when an amendment is tabled\u2014an amendment was tabled at what appears to be 9.05.00 a.m. on\u2014well, the date says \u201C28 August 2026\u201D, but in the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EDoctor Who\u003C/span\u003E / Hogwarts environment of Parliament, it still says \u201C25 August\u201D on the wall.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere is a proposed amendment to Amendment Paper 710: \u201CThe Hon Chris Bishop in committee to move the following amendments: clause 2, \u2018delete 243, 252, and\u2019\u201D\u2014that was an incorrect cross-reference\u2014\u201Cand, in clause 30, \u2018replace \u201Call coastal permits\u201D with \u201Ccoastal permits or land use permits\u201D\u2019\u201D. That was an omission and corrects an error, because land use permits are referred to elsewhere in the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222f5958c00a4ce00ebd9fd2c523623b58\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Who picked it up!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b36bb04bf669783d72c40ac54b2f5ce4\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: I can see the member Arena Williams taking credit for that. She is an incredibly diligent parliamentarian and is always focused on the details.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIf I could just come back to the \u201Cx\u201D, it turns out that that was not an error; it is a reference to a paragraph number.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a5c80c629d3bd8d43a86bd9d85374a40\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s right\u2014that is the delight. It is a delight.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b2fb36781459a348962a305afc481070\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: And the member is delighted. Potentially, she\u2019ll be delighted to help us move through the rest of the committee stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI will attempt to be brief in my response. Levies versus limits: there\u2019s two different types of levies in the bill, one to fund the cost of a specified list of activities involved in managing a resource, and the other one is to fund activities to resolve over-allocation issues and provide efficient resource-use within management units. I think that addresses the member\u2019s question. If environmental limits\u2014ecological limits\u2014are exceeded and there needs to be funding to resolve over-allocation issues, levies can be used for that purpose.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u00229ed62bbf30364b3b510fa1bf84e968b4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229ed62bbf30364b3b510fa1bf84e968b4\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (09:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. This will be a brief question about the enforcement functions of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) that begins at new clause 273A. It\u2019s just a lift and shift situation that\u2019s going on here in the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper. I just want to ask specifically about the thing that I care most about, which is the new power for the EPA to take enforcement action against regional councils itself. Has that remained from that deletion and the reinsertion here?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022 data-id=\u00223aa2f6a08eaa7638b74694bfa77116f1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223aa2f6a08eaa7638b74694bfa77116f1\u0022\u003EVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (09:49)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is in relation to the scope of awards that can be made if a case is moved from the Environment Court to the District Court, which is permitted under clause 253(5). Clause\u00A0252(1) sets out what an Environment Court can do and the awards that they can make, and that includes the cost of investigating the offence and any associated costs, and that being payable to the EPA.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, if the case was transferred then to the District Court, there\u2019s a question about the scope and the scale of awards that can be made. On first view, one would assume that there\u2019s a broader mandate in terms of the ability to make those awards, but the language isn\u2019t specific in relation to the District Court that that power is available. I\u2019m just confirming with the member in the chair that indeed, if a case was shifted between those two courts, that explicit power in clause 252(1) with the Environment Court would also exist with the district court under clause 253(5). \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen in relation to the scope and effect of a declaration, which is in clause 254, my first question was just about the potential to have an injunction if there\u2019s a sense that something is likely to contravene the current rules and potentially have quite detrimental impacts. So, presumably, that injunction can\u2019t still exist. If an omission is found, is there a direction power as well or is this purely a declarative power\u2014would be my other part of that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002247ad4688aa6bac8c05d1a4977b63ba9a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002247ad4688aa6bac8c05d1a4977b63ba9a\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:51)\u003C/span\u003E: In response to the member Vanushi Walters\u2019 questions, I found it confusing to try to understand what clause and provisions the member is referring to. She referred to clause 251. This is struck out, and I would just have to confirm whether that\u2019s been moved to another part of the legislation, so if you could bear with me for one moment. The provisions deleted from clause 251 are moved to clause 273G. All of these provisions the member referred to still exist. They have just been moved. In response to the member Arena Williams\u2019 question on clause 273A, the answer is yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u00221094bab73c9fba834df8103f951eb385\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221094bab73c9fba834df8103f951eb385\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (09:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to move to clause 323A, and this is the\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251a3323c37323e8b39cac14b5df813c9\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Can you repeat that, please?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224f5e08f129cc3a7b6d512c3c409866a6\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM\u003C/span\u003E: Clause 323A. This is in Part 6 and it\u2019s about contaminated land. This is a very important area around the contaminated land framework, and what struck me about it and what I\u2019m interested to hear from the member is about its relation to the rest of the natural environment domain. What is really clear in this contaminated land area is that it spells out that the entirety of this provision is based on the principle that those who actually produce the pollution should bear the cost of managing it both to prevent damage to human health and the environment. There is a really clear obligation as we go through this part of the bill, and it touches on how also the polluters must be liable for cost recovery.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhy I\u2019m really interested in this clause and its application to the rest of the domains within the bill is: why have we been so clear when it comes to contaminated land about the \u201Cpolluter pays\u201D principle but we are not applying that to the rest of the domains when it comes to particularly water but it could also be biodiversity destruction? Why is it that the Government has picked up specifically on contaminated land in this space?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to acknowledge that this has been a real area of incredible work that has gone on, particularly with councils picking up responsibility for polluters who have often either left the country or simply just left a mess for the public to clean up. I understand why we and the Government have a focus of clarity on the \u201Cpolluter pays\u201D principle here. Why does it not have the same application outside of the contaminated land framework?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00226c94aa37834092d087e108484cdc52e0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226c94aa37834092d087e108484cdc52e0\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:54)\u003C/span\u003E: I understand at an intimate level the problem that the member describes. Before I was a member of Parliament I worked as a civil environmental engineer cleaning up some of New Zealand\u2019s most hazardous sites, some of which were orphan sites where the person who polluted could not be held liable. So it\u2019s important that we do have a regime for that. The purpose of the contaminated land framework as set out in clause 323A and clause 323B is that it provides for obligations when land is contaminated and used for hazardous activity, and clause 323C provides that the polluter may be liable for cost recovery.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ELast night in the debate on procedural principles I think it might have been the member the Hon Rachel Brooking who proposed that a \u201Cpolluter pays\u201D principle be added to the procedural principles. The reason that we haven\u2019t elected to do that and the reason it sits specifically here under \u201Ccontaminated land\u201D is because there are many other matters covered in the Natural Environment Bill. The member mentioned one\u2014indigenous biodiversity. Clearing vegetation is not pollution and so it would be unhelpful to have a \u201Cpolluter pays\u201D principle throughout the Act that needed to be applied to many other different circumstances. We\u2019re really focusing on discharges to land and making sure that those who are responsible for those discharges are responsible for managing them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u002221310b684de1b2cf73a9adea23a7e1f9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002221310b684de1b2cf73a9adea23a7e1f9\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (09:56)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. In Amendment Paper 710 \u201Cat the start, on page 6\u2014I think I flipped over this explanatory note at the start\u2014it says, about the changes to Part 6, that they \u201Camend provisions relating to infringement offences to\u2014align more closely with the approach under the RMA; and avoid disturbing the position under \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\u0022\u003EDown v R\u003C/span\u003E12] NZSC 21:\u201D\u2014that is the New Zealand Supreme Court. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo I\u2019m interested in what changes have been made to infringement offences, because when you go to clauses 288 to 297, they look to be dealing with infringement offences. On the face of it, it doesn\u2019t look like there have been too many changes to the infringement offences, so I\u2019m wondering if the member can explain what the changes are that are referred to in the explanatory note.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen it says, \u201Cto\u2014align more closely with the approach under the RMA;\u201D what does that mean in a policy sense? Infringement offences normally rely on some secondary legislation and it can be the most useful tool, but often regulators don\u2019t have access to infringement offences because the regulations don\u2019t exist or something else happens. My recollection of discussion of this bill as it was progressing through was that we had stronger enforcement provisions, that the Minister in charge is very interested in good compliance monitoring and enforcement, that we want better data and we want better information to do that monitoring but also to actually do the enforcement when it\u2019s needed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnd whilst infringement offences are a small part of an enforcement regime, they are often an important part of it, and they are quick. They are stealthy. They are stealthy in terms of offences. So can the member tell me what the changes are and if the consequence of the changes is to make it more difficult for a regulator to use an infringement offence or if it\u2019s going in the other direction and it will be easier to use an infringement offence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00225c69171eed2a8f9bea760756a84a6f2c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225c69171eed2a8f9bea760756a84a6f2c\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:59)\u003C/span\u003E: The changes in clause 289 is that subclause (3) is deleted and replaced with clause 296(b) to preserve the position of the Supreme Court decision on \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\u0022\u003EDown v R\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00220937619ab18b47fcdf5007255d99b4d5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220937619ab18b47fcdf5007255d99b4d5\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (09:59)\u003C/span\u003E: That doesn\u2019t answer my question about what direction it\u2019s going in. Can he tell us what that position is that is being preserved? We don\u2019t have the court case in front of us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002208952027a05ccf76eb3ac3e79ef68f75\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002208952027a05ccf76eb3ac3e79ef68f75\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:59)\u003C/span\u003E: It will make it easier for enforcement operators, regulators, to provide infringements rather than having to rely on the tedious process under the Resource Management Act leading to abatement, which often meant that pollution and contamination went unresolved before a high threshold for action was taken.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u00223248b6f10d0994e85fc59c06bcdcadb7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223248b6f10d0994e85fc59c06bcdcadb7\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (10:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to pick up on the member\u2019s responses to my questions on the contaminated land framework. He\u2019s made it very specific that they\u2019re focused on discharges to land, and I think that absolutely makes sense. He also picked up on the fact that the clearance of biodiversity is not pollution. It is entirely possible to provide for that very thing, so if the concern is how does a \u201Cpolluter pays\u201D principle apply to biodiversity clearance, you can make up a rule around that, and a principle around that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWhat I\u2019m interested in hearing from the member when he talked about discharges to land is why does that not apply to other domains, because we know, for example, that the costs of discharges to land in areas that are outside the contaminated land framework are making communities face costs right now. We know that in Ashburton, for example, Tinwald is looking at millions of dollars to seek new drinking water sources; Selwyn District Council is looking at hundreds of millions of dollars for treating their drinking water; Christchurch City Council, from land discharges just north of their drinking water sources in the Waimakariri is looking at hundreds of millions, if not billions; so why is that same principle not applying to those costs when they are discharges to land, but they\u2019re outside of the contaminated land framework?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002295340a57576ade01bd6068b148cf7059\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002295340a57576ade01bd6068b148cf7059\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (10:02)\u003C/span\u003E: The member may recall that the member and I discussed this extensively last night in a previous part of the debate, so what I will say, again, is that this provision provides specifically for contaminated land\u2014the \u201Cpolluter pays\u201D principle\u2014and that the matters that the member referred to are covered by other parts of the Natural Environment Bill legislation, including national policy direction, national standards providing for discharges through the effects management regime, through rules and plans, and through consenting and conditioning of consents.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022440a125e85954bae9f5d470b7551e4f3\u0022 data-id=\u00226fd7b733979018023a1654378f29240e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022440a125e85954bae9f5d470b7551e4f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226fd7b733979018023a1654378f29240e\u0022\u003ECAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (10:03)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223926c083f56e4fce678cdf038a8b2c4c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 710 amending clause 307 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bb00ccf0bf98eaa3cb7d5d5940028876\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Arena Williams\u2019 tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 710 amending clause 307 is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 6 set out on Amendment Paper 710 as amended be agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Part 6 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 6 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b43a3bfd2f677196b924ddb64c139f97\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: We move to the Schedules.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 1 be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002211e713d936384a6b57d88a1c07923c4a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 710 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 2 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f7506343cfe347231cf6282acb04c742\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Schedule 2A. The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Schedule 2A set out on Amendment Paper 710 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 2A as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 2A as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220664f0b49e49d4e13a31b4c78ececed8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Moving to Schedule 3, the question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Schedule 3 set out on Amendment Paper 710 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 3 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 3 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b0b0b5c5e66cf7983db73cae9d8c03de\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Moving on to Schedule 4, the question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Schedule 4 set out on Amendment Paper 710 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e64367d72a3d02a951c7e150b2259f13\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Lan Pham\u2019s amendments to Schedule 4 set out on Amendment Paper 725 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 4 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 4 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221e8f406df424dc17e84a668645abe11e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019re on to Schedule 5. The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Schedule 5 set out on Amendment Paper 710 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221f00aaadfdb789736f145ef9fc1d9809\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s amendments to Schedule 5 inserting clause 9(4) and deleting clause 13, set out on Amendment Paper 705, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005530\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 5 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 5 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 6 be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 6 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002203a6cd24058a960a06b93eb2c7352f8e\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u002249ec5df9cb2cb5f68a7bf38e9d80e5ac\u0022\u003EClauses 1 and 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022826ed022a2f246bfaeac6b48e0295ca7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to our final debate, which is clauses 1 and 2, \u201CTitle\u201D and \u201CCommencement\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022d0e186dd296a2460d7e844516832653a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d0e186dd296a2460d7e844516832653a\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (10:17)\u003C/span\u003E: I would like to go first to clause 2, which is \u201CCommencement\u201D, and make a couple of observations on it. One is that whereas the Planning Bill has some provisions having near immediate effect\u2014or one month from commencement, which is going to be very close to the election, I presume\u2014this bill has no such provision. Everything is coming into force either via Order in Council\u2014so who knows when\u2014or the default four years after the Act comes into force. That\u2019s at subclause 2A, the default. It looks like it\u2019s been added in. I would be interested in the Minister responsible for RMA Reform commenting on when he thinks those different provisions that are found in subclause (2) might come into effect\u2014when those Orders in Council might happen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ENow, this is particularly relevant for the insertions of paragraphs (ca), (cb), and (cc), because those all relate to schedules that we were not able to debate during this committee stage. I know my friend Lan Pham had a lot to say on water conservation orders, and there is some real fear that there are changes there that could be regressive in terms of the relationship with land-use consents. There is some real fear about freshwater farm plans not being as robust as they might have been, but we didn\u2019t get to test that. And who knows about coastal matters, because that was also in Schedule 3, which was not touched on. It would be useful for the Minister to set out the thinking of when these various provisions might have an Order in Council around them, and the time frames for when they might be\u2014noting, of course, that there is that backstop of four years, which matches the backstop of the Planning Bill. That\u2019s my question on clause 2. I\u2019ll come back to clause 1 in a moment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u002274a215964164deb4a68af9c32b09303b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002274a215964164deb4a68af9c32b09303b\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (10:20)\u003C/span\u003E: The member the Hon Rachel Brooking is not quite right. Clause 2 is the commencement, which actually brings quite a lot of stuff into force on the day after Royal assent. The default is that everything comes into effect the day after Royal assent, but then there are the exceptions at clause 2(2). Then new clause 2(2A) is the backstop, which is four years\u2014which, the member is right, is new. I mean, at a high level, it\u2019s basically: the law is the law once it gets signed by the Governor-General or the administrator of Government\u2014she\u2019s out of the country\u2014and then there\u2019s a bunch of exceptions in the next four years, and the backstop is the four years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s relatively complicated, at some level, because it\u2019s a complicated piece of legislation, alongside the Planning Bill/Act. The intention is that the national policy direction (NPD) standards and plan-making provisions get commenced immediately, and then the Order in Council process will commence the regulatory functions, including duties and restrictions and consenting once the proposed plans have been notified. So, you start the NPD, move down to the plans, and then we turn on the system over the next few years. That\u2019s the intention. Exactly when that happens will be \u201Cto be determined\u201D, obviously.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo clause 2(2)(ca), (cc), and (cb), which the member asked about, I\u2019m advised they\u2019re all intended to commence on the specified transition date, as will everything under clause\u00A02(2). In the meantime, with relation to the regulatory functions, they\u2019ll remain in force under the Resource Management Act (RMA), with amendments made to the RMA by the Planning Bill. It is complicated, but there\u2019s a pathway to get it all into place in the next three years, and whoever ends up in possession of the RMA reform Minister portfolio\u2014which, probably, I venture to suggest, will not exist once these bills come into effect; well, that\u2019s not a decision for me, but\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225a06f87db8f051beef89c3d4c8bdd070\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s even more necessary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022df90cc519b39cf5c5102ccdcb9feee8f\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I think\u2014I\u2019m just going to throw this out there\u2014that we\u2019re going to end up with a Minister of Planning. I\u2019m just going to say that: a planning Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c674872a9f5dc0a2aab9a0fc054a93db\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: We heard it live today, right now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229d60fe75877fb0ca9d46bf86e589916e\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m going to get myself in trouble now! It\u2019s not my decision, but, I mean, personally, I don\u2019t think it makes a lot of sense to have a\u2014I mean, the RMA reform Minister job has been\u2014you know, we\u2019ve done the national direction. Well, fast track is now in the infrastructure portfolio, but we\u2019ve done the national direction; we\u2019ve now done this package of legislation, the two bills, and the ancillary stuff, and my own personal view is that we should just have a planning Minister, and, probably, the Minister for the Environment should be the\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d90d335f79a94f8e16b7ac37c4fe6e50\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: Damage control.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225ab2e7fd325cb519b89f3057196e9194\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cd9e9d2068cf2f64034b1080295fd5cb\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: Damage control.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002253373ce00950a31e65722bf775a603fb\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Let\u2019s just leave it to calls and not have a conversation across the Chamber.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220c9c2b6d07c9e0dae35c16291f19320c\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s, I think, unfair. Oh, well, anyway, all of that\u2019s to be determined. Those things are actually outside the remit of the debate and, actually, frankly outside my powers, so I probably shouldn\u2019t have commented on it, but anyway, we are where we are.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022230dea3621378bf07665dfe6d4014e7f\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Keep going\u2014keep going.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002281f21bfe4375ba54543665e8f1f3c7b5\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: No, no\u2014no, no. I\u2019ve said too much\u2014I\u2019ve said too much. It\u2019s about a three- to four-year transition window, and it\u2019s actually relatively straightforward when you think about it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00227676201eab3489d2af1400f9b80c948a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227676201eab3489d2af1400f9b80c948a\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:24)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I specifically have questions on clause 2, as well. Thank you, Minister, for clearing up one of my questions, which is the insertion of new clause 2(2A) around the backstop of four years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005564\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI am now curious, because the Minister responsible for RMA Reform has kind of opened the scope to discuss the responsible Minister, because we see that in here. I just want to check with the Minister: if it\u2019s not what the Minister has suggested and the Resource Management Act (RMA) reform Minister may no longer be around once this finishes, who will be the appropriate responsible Minister in that case?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to look at a couple of specific ones relating to clause 2(2). There are a number of subclauses in here which relate to regulations or specific areas. I have two questions, the first question being: how much of this is already in existence and is simply rolled over under this new bill? A lot of these provisions we have seen already exist in the current RMA. Do they need to be in here if it\u2019s simply being rolled over from the existing one? For example, I think clause 2(d) is something that we discussed yesterday, around section\u00A0128 provisions for wildlife approvals. That\u2019s something that already currently exists. What\u2019s the reason, if there\u2019s a carry-over, to require another Order in Council in this particular instance?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe one I want to focus on is actually clause 2(2)(h), which relates to clause 323B, and that\u2019s not so much in terms of a regulation but the ability for a person who\u2019s got contaminated land or land use for hazardous activities to report. I wonder why that needs to be in the Order in Council for them to report, presumably, on something they are reporting on currently. Now, when they\u2019re not taking effect, that requires an Order in Council for that to then take place. What happened to this sort of limbo grey area? Does that mean that people will still be reporting or there\u2019s now suddenly no reporting requirements?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI believe, in clause 323B, there was a comparison to a previous clause in a 2023 amendment to the RMA. I wanted to know, with clause (2)(h), do they still need to report despite the Order in Council not having gone through for the enactment of that particular provision?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00226d3d44e2452847a2253e14abcb774946\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226d3d44e2452847a2253e14abcb774946\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (10:26)\u003C/span\u003E: I inadvertently widened the scope of the debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f8db338ababed3f7cef41a732389648e\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m just curious\u2014I am curious.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002276d049b411c7c749e28c11c75444cd56\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, yeah, well, so am I\u2014so am I. I\u2019m just taking\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005571\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c65b36b2c9cb4d04b8c785e4e8ebbe87\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: \u201CPlanning Master-General\u201D!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226d67b5108422e8f599d75dd8589ece6e\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Eh?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221cb41786c741ec6462996fd40bb9d311\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Call it the \u201CPlanning Master-General\u201D!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224cca0dc532eeb9aeabd3d4420d0cb464\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m just taking some further advice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022957eb3c6c4b68a7bb0860c67cb1965b7\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: On that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002222d7bc7da3ee5581d27849fbfc3938d8\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Definitely not on that. As I understand it, previously, Acts used to specify who the responsible Minister was, so they would say, you know, \u201CThe person responsible for this Act is X\u201D. We don\u2019t do that any more; responsibility for legislation is a Cabinet Office process, as I understand it, and so exactly who will be responsible for both Acts will be a decision for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. That will all be worked through.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI suppose I was just indicating that it makes sense to have a planning Minister responsible for planning and a logical place for the Environment Act would be the environment Minister, but that may also not be true. Anyway, that will all be worked out. It\u2019s actually not that material, to be honest, for the purposes of this discussion. It\u2019s not actually that relevant to the legislation. The point is there\u2019s going to be an Act, and there will be a Minister responsible for the Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u002275cb07e208b1301056f7bc765bd264bb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002275cb07e208b1301056f7bc765bd264bb\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (10:28)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to ask the Minister responsible for RMA Reform about clause 2(2). I understand why the Minister has opted for a system which comes in in a staged way. It is a difficult thing to transition to the new regime\u2014we accept that\u2014but this goes significantly further than the kind of on/off in a staged way that he has described. If that was the intention, the legislation would set out a staged way. This allows maximum flexibility for the Government to decide, by Order in Council and with very few criteria, what dates will apply, and it could all be at the end of the four-year period anyway, or even extended from there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe problem, really, is a rule-of-law problem, where he\u2019s now given the executive of Government even more power to turn on and off rules within areas. It could be the case that the Waikato is operating under old rules and Auckland is operating under new rules for a longer period of time, and that is, simply, a really difficult position to put any system users in, and a very beneficial one for Government to be put in. It\u2019s particularly detrimental to those seeking to exercise M\u0101ori rights and interests in this system, because when you have system users who are already at a disadvantage because of the development difficulties with their land\u2014where they\u2019re already at a disadvantage because they are not yet entities that are recognised as entities which are appropriate to exist within the system, like settled iwi\u2014 you then create another barrier where they have to work their way through a myriad of rules which are not known and not knowable. That is just another way where it is harder and harder for iwi to make sure they\u2019re at the table in decisions which this Government sees it as completely appropriate for them to be involved in. Yes, there is a legitimate debate about what those areas are, but in areas where we all agree, it should be a duty for the Crown to act honourably and to ensure that those iwi are able to participate in those things in the easiest way possible.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis sequencing provision here, where it is going to be quite unclear when an Order in Council is anticipated to become in force, is a real problem, especially for the things like freshwater farm plans, for wildlife approvals, for natural resource permits. Those are things where iwi want to be at the table, but it\u2019s unclear when they will have to be able to do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf you take the system design for users with users in mind, which is what the Government should have done, then there should be criteria for those dates to be set so at least people can see what kind of improvements they need to make to their own systems, in what kind of time frames. It has been the habit of this Government to require other system participants, like local councils, to respond to it within, say, 90 days. That is a precedent which has been set. That is what will be expected. Only really the largest and most resourced participants will be able to make those deadlines. Everybody else will be screaming along behind the Government, jogging along, trying their best to keep up, for the next four years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen we might see the Government introducing all of the rules in four years because it\u2019s not ready either. It should have picked a later date. There are plenty of options on the table and Amendment Papers by my very able colleagues who have participated in this debate in good faith and have been themselves jogging along behind the Government, trying to keep up with the amendments, trying to keep up with the changes that have been introduced at the last minute.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is an incredibly difficult way of doing lawmaking for anyone who is trying to do their best, do exactly as the Government has asked them, play along by the rules, and respect their environment as well as use their economic rights. But they will get it wrong. They will get it wrong over and over again. And the Government\u2019s response has been to up the penalties and to make it harder for them to participate in hearings, to make it harder for them to access their procedural rights. This is a design where it is very, very difficult, for whether the planning Minister is called the \u201CPlanning Minister\u201D or the \u201CPlanning Master General\u201D or the \u201CChairman of the State Planning Committee\u201D, that person will have all of the power to introduce rules when and where, and everybody else just has to lump it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00229ebc776376cf7fc4a14912c8a861d761\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229ebc776376cf7fc4a14912c8a861d761\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (10:32)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, thanks for that, comrade. We\u2019ll sing \u201CThe Internationale\u201D together. Goodness gracious me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA few sort of inaccuracies there. I mean, the starting point of all of this stuff is that it is difficult, OK, because we\u2019re in a once-in-a-generation, once-in-a-30-year transition from the old to the new. That\u2019s the sort of starting point, and there\u2019s a number of ways you can approach that. You can do a decade, which is what the previous Natural and Built Environment Act (NBA) and Spatial Planning Act (SPA) process was going to take, which I think most people thought was too long. I would agree on that. Then you can do the kind of different regions turn on at different times approach\u2014again, that was the NBA approach. That\u2019s not perfect either. There was some logic to that, notwithstanding Arena Williams\u2019 comments around how that would be silly. That is theoretically possible under this transition, but it\u2019s not our intended approach. The member is right: it would not be good to have Auckland and Waikato with different rules at different times. That would be very complicated and confusing. That\u2019s not the intention. It\u2019s theoretically possible, but that\u2019s not the Government\u2019s approach.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve gone for, again, as I think I\u2019ve said a number of times throughout this debate, a balanced approach, which is: you\u2019ve got the backstop of the four years; some things come into force immediately\u2014kind of quick win - type stuff; a backstop of four years; and then a staged transition approach throughout it, and we\u2019ll just work our way through that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EShould there be an approach of laying out in dates exactly when each provision comes in? I mean, well, there\u2019s an argument for that, but then the trade-off with that is the flexibility around the system not keeping up, around some people not being ready. You do need that flexibility, and I think we\u2019ve taken the right approach with that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI can tell the committee there will be extensive material prepared. The Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport is already working around that communicating. They\u2019ve already got various different stakeholder groups set up. They\u2019re working with Local Government Professionals\u2014Taituar\u0101, I think they\u2019re called; the old SOLGM, Society of Local Government Managers. They\u2019re working with the Resource Management Law Association. There\u2019s an erstwhile alumnus of that organisation in the Chamber. They\u2019re working with the New Zealand Planning Institute\u2014great people who will be in this donkey deep in the next four years or so, Liz Moncrieff and the team. There\u2019s a lot of people invested in all of this stuff, and there\u2019ll be an extensive amount of workshops and stakeholder engagement and material publicised, and all of that will work its way through regardless of who the Minister is, obviously.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust, finally, in relation to\u2014I understand Ms Pham had a question for the chair when I was away: how much of this bill is rolled over from the Resource Management Act (RMA)? It\u2019s a good question. These bills draw on the RMA in places which are efficient and reduce litigation risk of using new terms. Ultimately, they are new bills. They are new bills; different scheme; different framework; funnel approach, obviously, which we\u2019ve talked about; a variety of different instruments and tools throughout it. But we have kept some of the RMA nomenclature, and I think that was important. That was actually one of my criticisms of the NBA and the SPA: big new terms that have not been used before\u2014clearly there has to be some of that in the new system, but as much as you can, you want to try and use terms that people are familiar with, because that helps the transition.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u0022b22ebfb177fd80c91e11918e13a35d07\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b22ebfb177fd80c91e11918e13a35d07\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (10:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to start by talking about commencement in clause 2, because it\u2019s really important. This framework, in terms of a functional resource management system, is so critical to the entire country and particularly all those people who live in this country and all of those people, particularly, whose jobs it is to interact with it and plan for it and just be part of it. What really pains me about this commencement section is how necessary a functional framework is, but then I can\u2019t help but be so struck how dysfunctional this system is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, when it comes to commencement, the simple fact is these bills should not commence, and they shouldn\u2019t commence because the Government has got it so staggeringly wrong. Why it\u2019s staggering is because we had all the people who actually know, who are actually involved in these systems, putting in front of us the solutions that could have made it functional. Why didn\u2019t the Government listen? Why didn\u2019t the Government take this opportunity to get something right?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy title that I think would be much more appropriate for this bill in particular is the \u201CNatural Environment Dysfunction Bill\u201D, because even at the highest level, the Government have failed to even understand the concept of integration, where we cannot separate the built environment from the natural environment. It doesn\u2019t work. It\u2019s been spelt out time and time again that this is completely illogical, and there hasn\u2019t been a clear justification as to why it\u2019s split.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s where the dysfunction starts, but it continues through so many aspects, including the fact that the Government is claiming this is a fit for purpose 2026 framework, when the environmental limits themselves are not even environmental limits. That does not make sense, and it\u2019s actually shameful for a country like New Zealand, where so much of\u2014this Government purport to be all about economic growth and our exports and everything\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227d19573a8ba4d8283b17374978c8ea2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022512dbb3ed574d1fe817d28825023b4c8\u0022\u003EGrant McCallum\u003C/span\u003E: Jobs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221acd9c17e464b268920ff5a1b45e4934\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and jobs, and all of that depends on the backbone of our economy, which is our environment, and we\u2019re selling it off in these bills.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnother aspect that could be considered by this Government is that this is the \u201CNatural Environment (Delay till we Die) Bill\u201D. The delay, the delay, the delay is consistent throughout climate, throughout environment, and by the fact that, for example, the Government just introduced last-minute amendments that mean that regions of this country will not even have environmental limits\u2014noting that they\u2019re not even real environmental limits. These environmental limits don\u2019t even come into play until the 2040s.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe are getting nowhere fast. We are in a race to the bottom with this bill, because the environmental protections that New Zealanders know have, ultimately, not even managed to protect the environment so far. They\u2019ve been so drastically eroded and weakened, and any tools that could have progressed these things are gone. We are seeing agricultural industry lobby groups coming straight in and dictating the terms of this reform. It\u2019s not even serving our best farmers; it\u2019s serving our bottom-of-the-barrel farmers. It\u2019s letting the most polluting farms off the hook in a totally unfair way where the good farmers have to pick up the tab, and we\u2019re not even enabling catchment groups to take charge and be part of this. Those who know and understand the dysfunction of the system oppose this. These bills should never commence. It\u2019s such a missed opportunity, and I\u2019m extremely disappointed about the whole process and the duty of care that this Government\u2019s failed on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022fd0e7377c5a77cbc5d9bad83ef945a8c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fd0e7377c5a77cbc5d9bad83ef945a8c\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (10:42)\u003C/span\u003E: It is strange to be here speaking on a title clause of a bill that has many of the same parts in it as another bill that we\u2019ve just been discussing a day or so ago. That is because this Government has, for some terribly weird reason, decided that the natural environment can somehow be separated from land. It is this view of the world that you can put everything into little separate boxes, and you can say, \u201COh, no, it\u2019s fine for people to do whatever they like on their land. That won\u2019t have any consequences on the natural environment.\u201D But of course, we know that that is a total fiction. What you do on your land\u2014if you dig it up, and then there\u2019s a rain event and that dug-up material gets washed away into our rivers and our coastal environment, it stops the seaweed from growing and the fish from flourishing. We know that those two things are related, so to try and separate them is madness, and it is a madness that this Government embraces.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWe just had the Minister responsible for RMA Reform tell us that he thinks there should be a Minister for planning. Maybe you\u2019d have one sort of low-ranking environment Minister as well, and they would be low ranking because the Minister for the Environment has been outside of Cabinet for this whole term of Government and has had zero participation in this legislation\u2014even this bill that is supposedly the one that deals with the environment. That just demonstrates how this Government thinks of the environment. It does not think of the environment as the most important part of our economy. All of our primary production totally relies on our environment, and I see the Minister for Trade in the House and the Minister for Tourism. What does that rely on? It relies on our environment, and what are we doing to the environment in this bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022539f5103e31dd4f1350544e8b7715d4b\u0022\u003EHon Todd McClay\u003C/span\u003E: Protecting it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ae656dbfa36529295723a11211fadf15\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, somebody said protecting it. If only\u2014if only. That member\u2014I think it might have been the Minister for Trade\u2014has not been in the House during this debate, I suspect, because\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bcb846ea4387cb12776a41d05f884d5e\u0022\u003EHon Todd McClay\u003C/span\u003E: I said it as the Minister of Agriculture.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222aa02c822882e4ac818d1ccfdb7ce147\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, as Minister of Agriculture\u2014definitely not protecting the environment. I say that because the Minister of Agriculture might have been listening to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform who has told everyone this is great: \u201CThis is great new legislation. We are going to have environmental limits. For the first time, we\u2019re going to have proper environmental limits.\u201D, he says. He seems to have forgotten about the limits that were in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and various national environmental standards. \u201CIt\u2019s going to have limits.\u201D So then we interrogate those limits in this House, and what do we hear? \u201CYeah, some human health limits. We can measure those. They\u2019ll be there.\u201D But these limits for the environment, limits for our water quality, these limits that go to whether there can be mahinga kai\u2014so not only the eel in the river but are we going to be able to eat the eel in the river? No, none of those. Or \u201Cmaybe\u201D: \u201CMaybe we can have the odd environmental limit, but we\u2019ve got to be very clear about much it\u2019s going to cost, and somebody\u2019s going to have to pay for it.\u201D That is what Simon Court told us last night. That means that this title of this bill, as the Natural Environment Bill, is misleading. It gives us the idea that it might do something for the natural environment, but instead, that promise, from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, about the environmental limits\u2014those limits and any protections they\u2019re in\u2014have been dissipated to the four winds.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ESo, I think much better names for the bill would be the \u201CNatural Environment (Doesn\u2019t Matter to this Government) Bill\u201D or the \u201CNatural Environment (Enablement of Pollution and Biodiversity Destruction\u201D\u2014both those two things\u2014\u201CBill\u201D. This is the \u201CNatural Environment (But Only if the Community Pays) Bill\u201D, and my last contribution on this debate is that this bill is the \u201CGoodbye to the Natural Environment Bill\u201D. Mr Chair, haere r\u0101.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u002220ff7239a8b1ecf2cfdef6a746da9883\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002220ff7239a8b1ecf2cfdef6a746da9883\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (10:47)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, those are all interesting suggestions, but they are clearly not going to meet with the Government\u2019s approval. The bill does what it says on the tin, which is a bill called the Natural Environment Bill. It\u2019s a complementary, ancillary piece of legislation to the Planning Bill, which we debated on Tuesday, Wednesday, and I suspect a touch of Thursday as well. They\u2019re appropriate titles for the bills, we\u2019ve discussed the commencement of the bill at length already, and I think there\u2019s not much more to say about it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat clause 1 be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 51\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c2a5e4fc93bfa9db1aaa76bac3342c87\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 710 amending clause 2 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005615\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 51\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002241575cc16baf978ae8bd21232fa578aa\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Arena Williams\u2019 tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 710 amending clause 2 is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 710 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005622\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005624\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 51\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005627\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f55abbbd582a726db937d84115405b0f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s amendment to clause 2(1) set out on Amendment Paper 739 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005629\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 51\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005631\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005633\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat clause 2 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 51\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005638\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005639\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005640\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill to be reported with amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005641\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002287adf21be004ff4e0fbfe0c00dd64011\u0022\u003EEmergency Management Bill (No 2)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002204e2c4e4cc88d288312866a95fe46175\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005643\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u002251fb5b215cf3590753cdbece9118a304\u0022\u003EPart 1 Preliminary provisions, and Schedules 1 to 3\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225c4e35bf012bc0e72cff2946a28e8085\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: We come to the Emergency Management Bill\u00A0(No 2). We start with the debate on Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 13, \u201CPreliminary provisions\u201D, and Schedules 1 to 3. The question is that Part 1 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u00223cd46200ce53a67b15856e24206c98d9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005645\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223cd46200ce53a67b15856e24206c98d9\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (10:53)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019m pleased to present the Emergency Management Bill (No 2) for the committee of the whole House stage. I want to acknowledge the Governance and Administration Committee for their work in considering this important bill, and thank you to everyone who made submissions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELike national security, emergency management should be bipartisan. I want to thank all of the parties that have had input into getting this bill to this stage, and I look forward to constructive debate with you today. There is one substantive Amendment Paper that I have put on the Table. Although we will discuss it further later on in the debate, I\u2019d like to highlight the main changes it would make to the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment Paper 750 would give emergency management committees the power to carry out precautionary works when there is an imminent threat of an emergency but a state of emergency has not yet been declared. It also expands the Director-General of Emergency Management\u2019s power to step in and direct local emergency management authorities if necessary to preserve life, prevent injury, or prevent serious property damage. Bringing precautionary works into the bill removes any doubt that they are an important part of emergency management. It enables these activities to be subject to national direction. Direction would be a last resort, but, ultimately, the public would expect the Government to be able to step in if lives and property are at risk.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005648\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOverall, this bill will help ensure New Zealand is better prepared to manage more frequent and complex emergencies now and into the future. I look forward to continuing the work across the House to get this bill enacted so that the system is strengthened for all New Zealanders. Thank you, Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022 data-id=\u0022ead2ed09f73a4bfb788ef188f9862db2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ead2ed09f73a4bfb788ef188f9862db2\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (10:55)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019ll just start with quite a short call because I think it\u2019s an important one. I do want to acknowledge the work that has been done on this bill. It has obviously been across parties, and the Green Party does support the bill, but it\u2019s also really important that we try and get some improvements through this process as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005650\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI just want to start at clause 3. This is around the purpose of the bill. Fundamentally, we know that, when we look at emergency management, what we\u2019re trying to do is protect life. I\u2019m slightly concerned, actually, that when we look at the purpose\u2014and it lists all the purposes there\u2014the one thing that is missing is \u201Cprotecting life\u201D. I have an amendment that\u2019s time-stamped 27 August, 9.45.30, which is basically changing clause 3(b) to saying \u201Cprotecting life and property:\u201D instead of saying \u201Cprotecting property:\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m sure there\u2019s no hierarchy in these purposes, but I think it\u2019s a little bit concerning that we start with \u201Cprotecting property\u201D at the very top. I actually think that, if we want to send a message to the people, the very first protection that we should be giving is to the life of people, not property. This is just a very minor change, but actually I think it sends a clear signal that, actually, the life of people is the priority and the life of people comes first.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI would really appreciate the Minister for Emergency Management considering that amendment and giving the committee a response, because I think it\u2019s actually a really good way to, I guess, set the scene for this committee of the whole House stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u002206da8018158fd6b87a34bfd401012241\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002206da8018158fd6b87a34bfd401012241\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (10:57)\u003C/span\u003E: Thanks for speaking. I\u2019ll try and address the questions as they come. I acknowledge the Green member Mike Davidson too. You guys have done some heavy lifting on this and had a lot of input into it, and I want to acknowledge you for that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s a really good question, because, yes, you\u2019re absolutely right. Really, the intent of the bill is about keeping Kiwis safe, but the reality of it is that the safety of the public is already addressed in the chapeau of the purpose clause, so it has actually already been captured in the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022 data-id=\u0022768efce2c70dae263f063387a1ed7273\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005655\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022768efce2c70dae263f063387a1ed7273\u0022\u003ECUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour\u2014Ikaroa-R\u0101whiti) (10:58)\u003C/span\u003E:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003E[Authorised reo M\u0101ori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThank you, Minister. I want to, first of all, acknowledge the fact that Labour does support this bill. It\u2019s not our intention to drag this process out; however, we will go through it thoroughly. I want to acknowledge your bipartisan approach to emergency management the whole time you\u2019ve been the Minister. I also want to acknowledge your officials and, of course, all of us around the House, as well as acknowledging all the wh\u0101nau out there who do great work, whether paid or unpaid.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m going to follow up on Part 1, Minister, looking at the purpose in clause 3 and simply ask: why does the purpose of this bill not explicitly recognise Te Tiriti o Waitangi? It was originally clause 4 of Part 1. Why has the Government removed the previous bill\u2019s objective of greater recognition and participation of M\u0101ori in emergency management? After Cyclone Gabrielle, does the Minister accept that iwi, hap\u016B, and marae were emergency management partners, not simply stakeholders to consult? That goes for all other iwi and hap\u016B affected by recent weather events.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002283d494f024d55546ee0ba7a5d4d92642\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Just before I take the next call, I\u2019m just noting that people are bringing the Chair into the debate by using \u201Cyou\u201D and \u201Cyour\u201D. I know you guys are all committed to this bill, but if you can direct comments through the Chair, that would be useful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022799b18652e2c45fdcd88559a752a258b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022799b18652e2c45fdcd88559a752a258b\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (10:59)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair, and at the risk of peace breaking out in the Chamber over this bill\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002268f4835b701b688670926ee6f596f591\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003ENo worries, mate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222549739c3fdec288309d46d80c87a2b6\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, no worries\u2014I agree. Can I acknowledge the member Cushla Tangaere-Manuel. Not only has she been extremely proactive and done a lot of the heavy lifting in the work on this bill and with our officials\u2014and I acknowledge them and the outstanding work that they have done\u2014but you\u2019re also present on the ground, as well, during these events. I want to acknowledge your work and support in working alongside me, not just here in the House with the legislation but out on the ground too, supporting our communities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt was very simple. As you know, we\u2019ve worked very hard with the leads from our iwi leaders. I want to acknowledge them, Marama Royal and Kiritapu Allan, as their representatives, working really closely with us and the officials to make sure that we do recognise and codify in the legislation the outstanding work that iwi and hap\u016B do in emergency management. Without a doubt, as the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery for the past 2\u00BD and a bit years, I\u2019ve seen this at just about every event that I\u2019ve been at: just how good they are at emergency management\u2014that\u2019s not just for their own people; that\u2019s for the entire community\u2014and the expertise and the leadership they bring to it. It was really important that we codified that in the legislation. I think that we have done that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of the Treaty, I\u2019m sure that the member is aware that the select committee considered the matter and did not recommend that the Treaty clause be added to the bill. Speaking to that, there are a number of clauses throughout the bill which seek to give effect to the Crown\u2019s Treaty responsibilities, with some useful additions being made at the select committee, which the Government, of course, supported. Importantly, these features of the bill are supported by non-legislative work being done to improve the systems and relationships with iwi and M\u0101ori on the ground. Collectively, both legislative and operational improvements will better support Treaty-consistent emergency management across the four Rs of reduction, readiness, response, and recovery.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022 data-id=\u0022c7fddbc4d6f7b5fc1a6e06d65f49539c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c7fddbc4d6f7b5fc1a6e06d65f49539c\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green) (11:02)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019m just wanting to, again, thank the House for their cross-party work on this issue and the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery for his leadership and offering up extensive briefings. Also, to the submitters on this bill\u2014a lot of the people who submitted on this bill are emergency management professionals or volunteers who have extensive experience in the system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do want to ask some specific questions around clause 6(2), around the \u201Chappening\u201D section, and a proposal around that, but I wanted to preface my comments around why it is that we\u2019ve drafted amendments in this committee of the whole House stage even though we\u2019ve had an opportunity to also do so during the select committee stage. As you know, Minister, the Governance and Administration Committee did good work on this bill, but not every political party is represented on the Governance and Administration Committee, so we thought it would be a good opportunity to get the House\u2019s view on a number of topics. Some of the amendments we are putting forward here we did put forward during the select committee stage. I want to acknowledge my colleague Mike Davidson, who put forward several clauses regarding Te Tiriti, as my colleague Cushla Tangaere-Manuel has already outlined. We would like to see those clauses back in.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETurning now to clause 6, in the section about \u201Chappening\u201D, we would like to see a clause inserted in that. We have multiple proposals around it, but one of the specific ones that we proposed is \u201Cdrought\u201D. Obviously, drought and other extreme heat events are something that has occurred and has done massive damage, particularly in Australia. I do acknowledge that this is not necessarily an exhaustive list\u2014the clause acknowledges that \u201Chappening includes, without limitation, the following:\u201D\u2014so you could argue why, but then, if you make that argument, you could also argue why list anything there in the first place if you\u2019re not going to include drought.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005669\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe do think drought is significant and significant enough to be included as a paragraph here. The last major drought\u2014it\u2019s been a while since we\u2019ve had one. The last really serious one was in 2013, and that ended up causing billions of dollars of damage in Aotearoa. We do feel like inserting drought here would be a nice counterpart. Things like tsunami and floods have been listed. Things like storms, tornadoes, and cyclones have been listed, and serious fire has also been listed. We feel like drought is a good kind of counterpart to that and something that will add to and enhance this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve also drafted some amendments around adding to \u201Cactual or imminent attack\u201D, including widening it to acts of economic attacks or blockades, because we know that there is potential for a blockade on an island nation like New Zealand, or an economic attack, to seriously disrupt life and infrastructure in Aotearoa. I\u2019m just offering those to the Minister under clause 6(2). We would like to see those considered and added to the bill if possible. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022 data-id=\u002283bbef2e766002650fdefc0b042ee37b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002283bbef2e766002650fdefc0b042ee37b\u0022\u003EDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (11:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Minister. Thank you for your time this morning. I\u2019ve been involved in a number of emergency responses over the years\u2014this is in relation to clause 3, by the way\u2014and one of the things that you learn very quickly is that no single agency ever deals with a major emergency on its own. Whether it\u2019s an earthquake or flood or some other event, it takes all levels of statecraft to, essentially, kind of meet the need, so I understand why this purpose clause talks about coordination and planning across different sectors. As you know, good emergency management isn\u2019t just about what happens on the day; it\u2019s that work that\u2019s done beforehand to identify those risks, prepare communities, and make sure people know what their roles are when things go wrong.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005672\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWhat I would like to understand, though, is where the Government sees that balance between those wider objectives and the core business of emergency management. When those resources are finite, communities need confidence that agencies remain focused on being ready for the next emergency and responding effectively when it arrives. Just with this clause, Minister, it encompasses all that kind of social, economic, cultural, and environmental wellbeing alongside those wider objectives. I just want to know: how will this Government ensure those broader goals do not distract agencies from their primary responsibility of preparing for, responding to, and recovering from emergencies when New Zealanders need them the most? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022e1f73e13f8c405d8a666914726fbf38d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e1f73e13f8c405d8a666914726fbf38d\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (11:07)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I just respond to Francisco Hernandez\u2019s question and, again, initially, as I get around the room, can I acknowledge, Francisco, the work that you\u2019ve done on this emergency management bill and the way in which you\u2019ve conducted yourself and had a positive impact and effect on it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe reality of it is that you bring up a good point around drought, and I sort of thought, \u201CWell, practically, could we get that in?\u201D We\u2019d have to go back to the Parliamentary Counsel Office. The reality of it is that it is a list of happenings; it illustrates the \u201Call hazards\u201D scope of the bill. If we started to try to capture every single hazard, that would just not be feasible, so that is why it\u2019s not in there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EComing back to Dan\u2019s question, I think that\u2014just really quickly, when I came into the role of Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery, the only working knowledge I had was, really, operational, because I was part of a swiftwater rescue team in my own electorate up in Whangapar\u0101oa. Of course, I was a local MP in Opposition when we got hit with the Auckland floods, and I saw on the ground very quickly that there was no cavalry coming over the hill. The one thing that I have tried to do as Minister is I\u2019ve tried to effect operational change in the way that we approach weather events and our risks and hazards by being far more proactive, pre-positioning, making decisions early, and getting lots of communication out to the public.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat has been a shift for us, because, when I became the Minister, there was a thing they said sort of existed, and that was \u201Cthe boy that cried wolf\u201D. What it did is it kind of paralysed decision-making a bit for fear that you were going to have some noisy voices out in the community that said, \u201CYou\u2019re the boy that cried wolf. Why are you doing this? We don\u2019t need to do it.\u201D I said that we don\u2019t have the luxury of doing that any more. We\u2019ve actually got to make decisions early, we\u2019ve got to get people pre-positioned, and we\u2019ve got to get as much information out to the community. The community can make their own value judgment on how important they take it or how seriously they take things. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005677\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve always been really clear that someone doesn\u2019t take it seriously and is cavalier and doesn\u2019t care\u2014don\u2019t expect our first responders to put themselves in harm\u2019s way when you put yourself in a bad situation, although they will do that because they\u2019re first responders and that\u2019s how they\u2019re programmed and that\u2019s what they do. They\u2019re in their job because they want to protect lives and save lives. But there\u2019s nothing that will get me angry quicker than someone that\u2019s ignored warnings and put themselves in a bad situation and therefore puts our first responders or other members of the public at risk.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think the business as usual (BAU) now\u2014that is BAU. That is how we\u2019re operating. I want to acknowledge our mayors. I want to acknowledge our civil defence and emergency management groups and our controllers. We have world-class first responders. We have iwi and hap\u016B. We have community groups. We have rural trusts. Everyone comes together, and I actually feel that for the amount of events we have to deal with\u2014and someone gave me a statistic the other day that we\u2019re dealing with a weather event around the country about every six days\u2014we are actually doing really well and I\u2019m really proud of the work that\u2019s being done, and, of course, this bill is going to enhance that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005679\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the issues that really emerged was the fact that community groups and iwi and hap\u016B and rural trusts and everyone that\u2019s doing amazing work on the ground and isn\u2019t inside that formalised information system didn\u2019t know how to get information and didn\u2019t know where to go to get it and actually deliver it. Those are the sorts of changes that we\u2019re making to make sure that we\u2019re far more joined up and that our communities, when they need that help and want to see the cavalry coming over the hill, know the cavalry is going to be there for them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022 data-id=\u002243873f41d46f4636aa665cba1bf55c8a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005680\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002243873f41d46f4636aa665cba1bf55c8a\u0022\u003ELEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour\u2014M\u0101ngere) (11:11)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for the opportunity. I do want to acknowledge the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery and the work that has taken place. As a member of the Governance and Administration Committee, we had priorities, particularly viewing the stewardship of the emergency management system. I want to acknowledge the officials and also the submissions. We had 74 in total. We had a huge amount of M\u0101ori, iwi, and hap\u016B who wanted to have their contribution recognised formally. So I want to acknowledge all in that work and also members of the select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPeriodically we had questions and officials provided replies. It was important in the select committee work to recognise the work that had been led by the Minister but also the officials. It was important to put across the contributions of our community, who wanted everything strengthened. It was important to have very clear systems in place and clear language in the legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005682\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMinister, in reference to the purpose clause, can you just explain in terms of the work that the select committee did. We heard from the submitters who were specifically wanting to have very clear provisions, and the recognition of iwi and hap\u016B was really important. One of the things that iwi and hap\u016B advised us through the submission process was that they just do it\u2014they just get out there in their communities. When something happens, emergency management don\u2019t wait for the formality of the national controller, the formal communications. They just get out to their communities that are affected and they just set up. They feed people and they have people come through the doors.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005683\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECan the Minister explain to the committee and for those listening at home that we have got it right in terms of the language in terms of improving the management systems.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u002205ddc652863e5322b67f4f811ad50b96\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005684\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002205ddc652863e5322b67f4f811ad50b96\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (11:13)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you for the question. Again, I want to acknowledge the member. Not only has she been a very strong voice in highlighting the pop-up community efforts that go on during these events but she has actually turned up to workshops that have been set up in Auckland. So I want to acknowledge the member and her leadership in that space, and it has been captured inside the bill so I hope she feels that she can take some credit for that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005685\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn terms of iwi and other groups that represent M\u0101ori, they do have unique knowledge, skills, and resources to contribute to emergency management, and the bill formally recognises this by requiring emergency management committees to appoint one or more coordinating executive group members with knowledge of the interests and values of local M\u0101ori communities. And that is not just local M\u0101ori communities. That\u2019s other communities also that can be represented on that committee, and the bill also requires representatives of iwi and M\u0101ori to be involved in the development of regional and national emergency management plans.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022 data-id=\u0022a458de20ec0edf9c95983f051e641adf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005686\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a458de20ec0edf9c95983f051e641adf\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (11:14)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to talk about the birds and the bees just for a minute. In reference to clause 6(1)(b), I do have an amendment, timestamped 28 August, 10.00.00. In paragraph (b) it talks about an emergency happening that may cause loss of human life etc., and a threat to the public or property, and we know that property obviously includes livestock. One of the things that I feel is missing in there is around wildlife. We know in terms of bird flu, the potential that that could have. As time moves on, we could have something that\u2019s even more devastating and the need to respond in a much more coordinated way, and this bill could actually enable that. But as it currently stands, wildlife is excluded as one of the things that need to be responded to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005687\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI have an amendment that includes wildlife\u2014the mass and rapid loss of wildlife. So we\u2019re not talking about something that\u2019s not big or something that\u2019s slow. It\u2019s about a threat to our wildlife population that is going to be significant, and we should be acting, as that is a serious emergency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005688\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI have an additional amendment around the threat of mass and rapid loss of ecosystems. I would like the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery\u2019s consideration of that because I think it\u2019s really important that we acknowledge, as this bill does, protecting public property, and the fact that that also does include livestock but what we are missing in this space is our wildlife. New Zealand has unique fauna, especially with our avian population, and it would be an absolute tragic loss if we weren\u2019t prepared for an imminent threat to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u002233dde8edefd0c99c03d3235b85515820\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005689\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002233dde8edefd0c99c03d3235b85515820\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (11:17)\u003C/span\u003E: This amendment has been tabled quite late, and I acknowledge that so I\u2019m just having a look at it now. I\u2019m completely open\u2014if something comes forward that I think we can fold in there or there\u2019s a gap, then let\u2019s do it. I\u2019ll get some advice on this. The only thing I would say is, yes, we\u2019ve made significant changes in the bill because we wanted to recognise the importance of domestic pets and stock. If I use the Port Hills as an example, there was lots of flexibility on those roadblocks in terms of escorting people in so they could retrieve pets and check livestock and things like that. Farmers around these events are deeply sensitive\u2014not only do they care about their livestock, their animals but it is also their livelihood. Every time I\u2019ve seen an event, I\u2019ve seen the outstanding officials from the Ministry of Primary Industries and the rural trusts and everyone else working to try and address these issues. That\u2019s why it\u2019s in the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005690\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn relation to wildlife, that presents a whole different sort of situation. I\u2019d say that it is captured within the bill but let me get some advice on it and I\u2019ll come back to the member.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022 data-id=\u00228ccd46cdd42517e172902c7f55ab82e9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005691\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228ccd46cdd42517e172902c7f55ab82e9\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green) (11:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you so much to the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery for being so open to considering the amendment presented by my colleague.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005692\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy question is about clause 6(2), which lists happenings. Where does the Minister consider cyber-security fits within that bracket of happenings? There is a category of technological failure here, and there is a category of actual imminent attack or war-like attack here. Are there any gaps whereby the failure of the general infrastructure, the failure of cyber-space, has the potential to not be captured in any of those categories?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005693\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI just wanted to articulate why we feel there is a legislative gap with regard to wildlife. Clause 6(1)(b)(i) and (ii) talks about the loss of human life, injury or distress to people, or threat in any way to the safety of the public or property.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005694\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EYou could argue that wildlife is captured in clause 6(1)(b)(ii), but we feel like it\u2019s actually currently a gap because there are situations where a threat to wildlife or a threat to an ecosystem doesn\u2019t actually in any way pose a threat to the safety of the public or property, because in some of those areas, no one actually owns the wildlife, or no one owns the ecosystems. Definitionally, they\u2019re out in the wild. We do feel like that is a gap that my colleague Mike Davidson\u2019s amendments do potentially address.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005695\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve asked the question about cyber-security, and I\u2019ve elaborated on why we do see this as a gap, and I\u2019m looking forward to the continuation of this debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u002224f323ba6c1877026eb411bb51058c92\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005696\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002224f323ba6c1877026eb411bb51058c92\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (11:20)\u003C/span\u003E: Just very quickly on cyber-security, it\u2019s a great one to raise, because, obviously, cyber-security and artificial intelligence are real issues that we are grappling with not only as a country but globally. That is captured in the bill under \u201Cinfrastructure\u201D; infrastructure includes cybersecurity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005697\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EJust coming back to Mike Davidson\u2019s questions, the definition of \u201Cemergency\u201D is fundamental to the scope of the bill, including harm to wildlife. We\u2019ve significantly expanded the bill\u2019s scope. Protection of wildlife is most appropriately addressed through the Wildlife Act. Regional emergency management plans include planning for animals.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022 data-id=\u002231c086eff4a559931ce08b5354552d70\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005698\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002231c086eff4a559931ce08b5354552d70\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS (Green) (11:21)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair, and it\u2019s a pleasure to be able to have my first call on this. I know we\u2019re only early in the day, but this is a very important bill, and I appreciate the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery referring to the number of states of emergency that have already been announced. We will see more of these as the climate crisis deepens.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005699\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m reminded of some of my friends in France, who I\u2019ve been in touch with recently, who have been dealing with the fires that have burnt so much of France. I was talking to the Spanish Ambassador recently, who was reflecting that their Government has ensured that the energy system now must respect the limits that we have for\u2014because the climate crisis is happening; people are experiencing it thick and fast. I was reflecting on living in France in 2003 when there was that great heat dome across France; there were 60,000 people who suffered, and there was no place in the morgues during 2003. They were in refrigerated trucks.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005700\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s really just to highlight where we are placed. We\u2019re placed in a situation where climate impacts are hitting thick and fast globally, and will increasingly continue to hit. We will be hit with more extreme weather events, more extreme temperatures, more extreme flooding, and these create emergencies that we can\u2019t always predict. I\u2019ve got an amendment that is after clause 6. It was submitted on 27 August at 9.45.36: after clause\u00A06(1)(b)(ii) insert \u201C(iii) extreme temperature events.\u201D The reason for this insertion is simply to recognise that we want to be future focused. We can\u2019t simply think about where we are now; we need to think about what is coming at us. We may be lucky enough, being a maritime nation, to not have those great continental heat domes, but the extreme temperature events affect people, biological systems, and they can destroy crops, animals, and constitute an emergency situation that we will have to deal with and that we will have to manage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005701\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy suggestion to the Minister is that we really do need to think about futureproofing this legislation. We know that this is not something that is coming down the line; it is here with us now, and we need to be making sure that the legislation is fit for purpose. Essentially, that addition is recognising that there is the broader potential for disruption that will impact our ability to function, impact our biological systems, and will put us at risk of other situations. I put it to the Minister that this is simply a common-sense and, I hope, rational addition to that list that makes sense if we\u2019re thinking about what the future holds. It\u2019s future focused. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022d388a23842a7eaa56f4474b7118411c5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005702\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d388a23842a7eaa56f4474b7118411c5\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (11:25)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Firstly, to the member Scott Willis, can I just emphasise that the definition of \u201Chappening\u201D is non-exhaustive, so an extreme heat event or a cyber event can be captured within the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005703\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EYou\u2019ve raised the issue of climate. By the way, I just want to take a moment to think of the people of Nepal who are dealing with the flood event at the moment, and, of course, the human tragedy that\u2019s unfolding. We\u2019ve had reports that we\u2019ve got Kiwis over there that have been involved in that, so I just want to take a moment to reflect and mention that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005704\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs with the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act, the bill is hazard agnostic. Hazards can be human made or natural, including those exacerbated by climate change. The bill does not predetermine the best way to manage specific hazards. Instead, it provides a framework for identifying, assessing, and managing hazards and risks. For relevant hazards, climate change will inform all steps in this process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005705\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClimate change planning is also addressed through other legislation such as the Local Government Act 2002, which requires managing infrastructure risks related to natural hazards in long-term plans. The Resource Management Act 1991 incorporates the requirement for avoidance and mitigation of natural hazards in land management. Finally, the Climate Change Response Act 2002 provides the framework for New Zealand adapting to climate change and meeting international obligations. The bill identifies these Acts as legislation relevant to emergency management also. I just wanted to cover that off because, obviously, that\u2019s a relevant question that was always going to come up today. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005706\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a27c3f7e4e43058aae89ceef2c9005b8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Francisco Hernandez\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 3 replacing paragraph (a) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005707\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005709\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005711\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005712\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005713\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022957ebe476319e98104aa8ff22b68c3b9\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Tamatha Paul\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 3 replacing paragraph (a) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005714\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005715\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005716\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005717\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005718\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005719\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005720\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e37d17617605080b888790d37172d1da\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Mike Davidson\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 3 replacing paragraph (b) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005722\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005724\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005725\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005726\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005727\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022273aa2a36194a537a0d5aa69fcd89525\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Cushla Tangaere-Manuel\u2019s tabled amendments to clause 3 amending paragraph (g) and inserting new paragraph (h) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005728\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005729\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005730\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005731\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005732\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005733\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005734\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022746429ce47ab413522ae1245ef359059\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Francisco Hernandez\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 3 inserting new paragraph (h) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005735\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005736\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005737\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005738\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005739\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005740\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005741\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e53726bf09c9e91d8264604a3adaebc6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Mike Davidson\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 3 inserting new paragraph (h) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005742\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005743\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005744\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005745\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005746\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005747\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005748\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e86af8c5ac1c392e50e7bce9bd319ca1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke\u2019s amendment inserting new clause 3A set out on Amendment Paper 757 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005749\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005750\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005751\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005752\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005753\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005754\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005755\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227c6d5e7086bcc05a277b677bb51ed2be\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Chl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting new paragraph (c) in the definition of \u201Cdisproportionately affected community\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005756\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005757\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005758\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005759\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005760\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005761\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005762\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022525d87ca5fbc279e754dbff4da99005f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Mike Davidson\u2019s tabled amendments to clause 6(1) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005763\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005764\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005765\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005766\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005767\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005768\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005769\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b804cf6885c5d2d93216c669522cedbf\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Scott Willis\u2019 tabled amendment to clause 6(2) inserting new paragraph (ba) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005770\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005771\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005772\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005773\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005774\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005775\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005776\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222d6157fca8fad02332ca8c85c0d83826\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Kahurangi Carter\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 6(2) inserting new paragraph (ja) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005777\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005778\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005779\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005780\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005781\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005782\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005783\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002281f1a651f00854e28bf4eac1d9b4b7cc\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Celia Wade-Brown\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 6(2) inserting new paragraph (ka) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005784\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005785\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005786\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005787\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005788\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005789\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005790\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022df40de175a934037ec639722fdff25fa\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Francisco Hernandez\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 6(2) inserting new paragraph (l) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005791\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005792\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005793\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005794\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005795\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005797\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005798\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002278e8cda68aea5205e2b04db59f9a3bc2\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005799\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u002286678e48ba150bd6f8e88cd0090ba1d1\u0022\u003EPart 2 Emergency management system role-holders\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005800\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f91e67dde9834bd166c84179365e2d1e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 14 to 76, \u201CEmergency management system role-holders\u201D. The question is that Part 2 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022 data-id=\u0022a430e83a67856d226d81c876ab59825e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005801\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a430e83a67856d226d81c876ab59825e\u0022\u003ECUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour\u2014Ikaroa-R\u0101whiti) (11:36)\u003C/span\u003E: T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Mr Chair. Before I proceed, I seek your advice. I\u2019ve got a series of questions starting from clause 24 to 41. I don\u2019t want to preclude anyone else asking questions that may be in other clauses of that part, but I think it makes sense for me to ask them as a cluster.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005802\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d4af20d89f84120c54b3352b204d622d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s fine. We have another Chair who will be coming in to replace me who will also have noted that as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005803\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f4a4bb73696c9fc5ba5bd6c52807d52d\u0022\u003ECUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL\u003C/span\u003E: Ka pai, thank you. Right. Moving on to Emergency Management Committees, looking at clause 24, \u201CMembers of Emergency Management Committees\u201D. Minister, you have acknowledged the unique skills of iwi and hap\u016B, and, having experience being on the ground with you, I believe that acknowledgment to be genuine. The question is: why does the bill not guarantee M\u0101ori representation on every Emergency Management Committee?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005804\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMoving to clause 26, how does the Minister guarantee mana whenua have a genuine decision-making voice on multi-member Emergency Management Committees?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005805\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELooking at clause 30A, why can associate members participate in discussions but not exercise all the same powers as other members? Does the Minister believe that risks creating second-tier M\u0101ori representation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005806\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is a very specific question relating to clause 28, quote/unquote \u201Ctriple hat role confusion\u201D, and the specific example is that there is no clause that resolves the Tair\u0101whiti Gisborne District Council\u2019s sitting simultaneously as civil defence emergency management group, local authority, and administering authority. How will this be fixed?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005807\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMoving to clauses 39 to 41, coordinating executive groups. Relating to clause 39, does the Minister consider iwi and M\u0101ori organisations as operational partners during emergencies? Clause 41: who pays for iwi and M\u0101ori representatives to participate effectively? What happens if the resources or support promised under clause 41 are not provided? Kia ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005808\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251aa99f0e867212a0e26603ef21d9bc2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I would just like to acknowledge that member and the benchmark of the way she asked those questions during the committee stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022 data-id=\u0022bc26a33552e6ba70ed59d7dd70ac85b6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005809\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bc26a33552e6ba70ed59d7dd70ac85b6\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green) (11:39)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. We will try and live up to that benchmark. My question is around clause 14(a) and clause 14(b). Now, of course, there was a suggestion from Engineering New Zealand around the potential for one of the functions of the Director-General of Emergency Management to be the lead agency and to be the one that would be responsible for a nationwide programme of national hazards mapping. We\u2019ve got an amendment to that effect. One of the other suggestions of Engineering New Zealand that we\u2019ve sought to actualise in our amendments is to have that list of scarce technical capacity and have that be a function of the Director-General of\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EMember coughs\u003C/span\u003E] Excuse me, Madam Chair\u2014Emergency Management.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005810\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bde345b87d9be5c71e7d9b868de5bcc9\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Feel free to have a drink.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005811\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002286518f6dd178e24191892598376cc6c4\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. We do know that these scarce technical skills are really essential in the emergency management space, and we do know that, like many other skill sets in New Zealand, that is something that we do have shortages in. So would the Minister consider, I guess, the idea of giving the function of national hazards mapping to the role of the Director-General of Emergency Management? And would the Minister consider, in clause 14, also the idea of having that director-general maintain the stewardship function\u2014of having those technical skills be something that they are in charge of, making sure that Aotearoa has a map or roadway as part of that skill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022 data-id=\u0022d1df61f47dcc9047168fe3c0a11e9848\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005812\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d1df61f47dcc9047168fe3c0a11e9848\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (11:40)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question on clause 15. I do have some questions, further on, that are a little bit more complex, but this one, I hope, is just a simple question, and it relates to clause 15(2)(a)(iv)\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005813\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c845045e53974fd58cf982f91538d6ed\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: What was that clause, sorry?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002201d23344806ff8d4fd37264b807cca43\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON\u003C/span\u003E: Clause 15(2)(a)(iv). I guess I\u2019m just trying to work out, and I guess it\u2019s quite a serious question, where the line sits when it talks about \u201Crelieving human distress and suffering\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005815\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EObviously, above that, in subparagraph (iii), it talks about \u201Cproviding medical care and attention to casualties\u201D\u2014this is, obviously, in a disaster. I just want to know, like, where does the line sit when it gives power to relieve human suffering? I think it\u2019s a really important question, because, when I\u2019m looking at that, is this saying they have the right to actually euthanise people? I would hope not, but I just kind of want to know where that line sits.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022ef216d36df6c6c06b94d2a279652382f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005816\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ef216d36df6c6c06b94d2a279652382f\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (11:42)\u003C/span\u003E: Coming back to the list of original questions\u2014yes, look, absolutely; there\u2019s no doubt about it: we know that iwi and hap\u016B are very good at emergency management. I\u2019ve already stated that in the House, so I won\u2019t relitigate it or go over it. Quite simply, the limitations on what the additional members can vote on are focused on ensuring non-elected members do not have access to extraordinary powers which affect the rights of the public. That relates to non-elected members on emergency management committees. It\u2019s as simple as that. It\u2019s a simple matter of democracy and a demarcation between non-elected and elected members, and the powers and the rights that they have in that decision making.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005817\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAre M\u0101ori represented at the elected level, in my view, around the country\u2014yes, they are. If I look at Northland Regional Council with Pita Tipene, the chair up there, I\u2019ve been on the ground with him several times and he\u2019s quite simply outstanding in the leadership that he provides up North, and he is making those decisions, without a doubt. In terms of funding back to the iwi, the Prime Minister was on the ground with me, again, in Northland and this Government has made sure that we expedite and we cut the red tape and compliance that iwi\u2014that marae\u2014have to go through to replenish. From what I understand, that has been working very well in terms of iwi being able to replenish and prepare themselves for the next event that they have to deal with.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005818\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to the triple-hatting for Tair\u0101whiti, as the member knows, Gisborne District Council is a unitary authority with its own emergency management committees. This means it only has one set of functions. It does not need to have an administrative authority. The ambiguity the member referenced as a problem in the current Act will be fixed in this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022 data-id=\u0022bf77423faba01e52a3bf0c63a73ca9a5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005819\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bf77423faba01e52a3bf0c63a73ca9a5\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green) (11:44)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Turning now to clause 15 and the suggestions that were made throughout the submissions process by groups like the Student Volunteer Army, they suggested that clauses 14 and 15 be amended to include sections in there that would, in effect, give the director-general the responsibility to make sure that the volunteer capacity and the volunteer functions of emergency management were being looked after in a systemic way. We\u2019ve drafted an amendment on clause 15(4)(c) to that effect, to insert the development of a strategic plan to integrate volunteer emergency management capacity within the overall framework of emergency management in Aotearoa New Zealand. Also, I just remind the Minister of the previous questions that I asked in my previous intervention, as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022 data-id=\u0022387cc119527408e26e148c0a8d7bd1c2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005820\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022387cc119527408e26e148c0a8d7bd1c2\u0022\u003EDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (11:45)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Minister. Just in relation to clause 27, throughout the bill there has rightly been a reoccurring theme that emergency management works best when local knowledge is able to reach the decision makers from the centre. We can have all the plans we like but, if decision makers are not hearing what\u2019s happening on the ground, they are, effectively, operating blind. We\u2019ve got many examples in New Zealand, as we\u2019ve learnt, about how that can derail a response. The regulatory impact statement also recognises that local authorities and communities often hold that information and that expertise, which is not always available at the centre. I have an amendment tabled for clause 27, and it requires\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005821\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226c505d3b6cf584939bfd1ec6b22da044\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Can you give us the number or the timing of the Amendment Paper? You carry on with your speech, and one of your colleagues might be able to let me know.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005822\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022da927f25ac19b3359a9b68028cbf6cba\u0022\u003EDAN ROSEWARNE\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment essentially requires emergency management committees to establish and maintain arrangements to receive information from communities before, during, and after emergencies. It doesn\u2019t create a new bureaucracy or reporting regime, but it tightens up the fact that people closest to an event are often the first to know when things are changing. This amendment is, essentially, making the system more responsive.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005823\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI suppose the question there, Minister, is: if a community identifies a significant emerging risk or unmet need during an emergency, where in clause 27 is the mechanism for receiving and considering that information, and would you be open to considering that amendment? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022c8b8bb9065284677c17f948da5706461\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005824\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c8b8bb9065284677c17f948da5706461\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (11:47)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m going to come back to Mike Davidson\u2019s one. No, the bill does not give the power to euthanise people. That is not in the bill. And the director-general\u2019s powers are for the purposes of the Act, which is to fundamentally support the wellbeing and safety of the public. I haven\u2019t forgotten about yours, Francisco; I\u2019m coming back to it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022 data-id=\u00224e896e21558fc225251c9ba877a9fa3a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005825\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224e896e21558fc225251c9ba877a9fa3a\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (11:47)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, and thank you for that answer to my previous question. I just wanted to talk to clause 25, the \u201CMulti-member and unitary authority Emergency Management Committees\u201D, and in relation to clause 22(5).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005826\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EObviously, we know that local government is going through reorganisation and regional councils will no longer exist, and so, when we look through, we\u2019re probably going to be faced with lots of unitary councils. The way this bill works is that, technically, you could have two unitary councils work together to create that multi-member emergency management committee, and then, when you refer over to clause 26, it talks about the representation on those committees; that each local authority member can have one person on the committee. Therefore, we\u2019re looking at an emergency management committee that could potentially have only two elected members on it that have voting rights. Then, actually, they have the ability to co-op associated members on there for skills and that, but, potentially, only two members on the committee are going to have voting rights.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005827\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen, through into clause 25(7), it refers to, obviously, clause 31 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act, which talks about joint committees and committees. One of the things to note in clause 31(6) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act is that the minimum number of members for a committee is three. So, potentially, we\u2019re creating a bill\u2014legislation\u2014that provides for a committee that will be made up of two members, which is actually contradictory to the Local Government Act, which says a minimum of three. I do wonder how well a committee would work if you have only two people with voting rights on that committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005828\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m just wondering if the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery has had advice around this, especially with the reorganisation and how that will impact the bill as it currently stands, and the potential of having a multi-member emergency management committee with only two members on it that actually have voting rights. I potentially feel that it could create issues, and I would think if you\u2019re in that situation, you would want to have to co-opt people and you\u2019d need to, because I don\u2019t feel that a two-member committee, as well as not being compliant with another Act, would actually be that effective. I feel like you might not get a great outcome if you\u2019ve got two members who have voting rights and maybe another three that do not have voting rights. That has obviously been traversed before. I do have an amendment to ensure those associated members do have voting rights. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005829\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other thing I just wanted to touch on\u2014it\u2019d be good to get the answer on that and I\u2019ll just ask one more question, seeing as I still have time, in relation to the same topic but in 2026. It is slightly different. It obviously refers to the councils, which can appoint one person\u2014obviously, the first one is the mayor or chairperson, and then by delegation they could just do an elected member from their local authority.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005830\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, my only concern around that is\u2014because I do agree that it should be an elected member that actually is the person that\u2019s delegated from the authority\u2014that if the Minister of Local Government puts in commissioners, for example, you should have a chairperson, but you would not actually have an elected person as well. So, therefore, clause 26(b) itself becomes impossible to achieve because there are no elected persons on a local authority that has a set of commissioners in charge of that organisation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo just a couple of questions, really, around the technicalities of having a multi-member Emergency Management Committee that only has two members on it. In fact, that actually contradicts what\u2019s allowed under Schedule 7 clause 31 of the Local Government Act, which says that memberships of committees need to be a minimum of three. Obviously, clause 26(b) would not be possible if commissioners were in place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022b00b1431c5f20621a373afbbf92920b4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005832\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b00b1431c5f20621a373afbbf92920b4\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (11:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, I\u2019ll address the member Mike Davidson\u2019s questions first. So we already have a joint committee of two unitary authorities; that would be Nelson and Tasman, with its combined civil defence and emergency management group, that actually work very effectively together. Any consequential changes required through the simplifying of the local government reforms, they\u2019ll be able to address the issues that you\u2019ve raised through those reforms.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005833\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn relation to the member Francisco Hernandez\u2019s issue that he raised, the amendment is not appropriate for the powers of the director-general, and the role of volunteers is recognised in other ways, namely through regional plans which must state how offers of assistance will be managed, and coordinated executive groups may appoint additional members who could include representatives of volunteer groups.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022 data-id=\u0022b286ec4dd0d1ec99e304c133cf9cdaa7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005834\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b286ec4dd0d1ec99e304c133cf9cdaa7\u0022\u003ECUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour\u2014Ikaroa-R\u0101whiti) (11:53)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to briefly speak to my tabled amendment on clause 29(2)(e) of Part 2, tabled on 27 August at 2.28 p.m. The amendment requests that in clause 29(2)(e), which states \u201Cprovide communications, equipment, accommodation, and facilities\u201D\u2014my proposed amendment is that after the words \u201Cand facilities\u201D, we include \u201Cincluding marae\u201D. It has been lauded across this committee the value that marae have, not just for the wh\u0101nau and hap\u016B of the areas affected, but for everyone who happens to be in the community at that time. I think that marae deserve the respect of actually being specifically named in this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022 data-id=\u002256289106b90b028d677fe56777481c2e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005835\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002256289106b90b028d677fe56777481c2e\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (11:54)\u003C/span\u003E: I just have a couple of questions around clause 27(1)(a)(iii) and also it\u2019s identical in clause 28(2)(a)(iii). This clause is obviously part of the functions of both the multi-member Emergency Management Committee and a unitary authority management committee\u2014they have to identify and implement cost-effective risk reduction. This is actually a really important part of emergency management response. I know we focused a lot on being prepared and the recovery of emergencies, but sometimes not enough effort actually goes into risk reduction. We know that the associated costs once an event has happened is huge. Actually, if we invest more at the start, then we could make it a lot better in the long run.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005836\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo my question is: when we have a look at that in the bill\u2014to identify and implement cost-effective risk reduction\u2014what is the analysis done to actually determine what is cost-effective risk reduction when we look at the costs that we\u2019re seeing from the natural disasters that are happening time and time again? We\u2019ve had so many states of emergencies this year alone. The cost of that obviously runs into the billions. Then, if we\u2019re looking at the risk reduction, how do we determine, and what was the analysis done to determine, what the cost-effective risk reduction of that is? Then how does it work to implement that? If the Emergency Management Committee identifies these areas where that would be cost-effective because in the long run it saves councils more money, over a longer period of time, how do they then go to implement that? What is the mechanism for them to implement that risk reduction? Also, how would that then tie into a rates cap if actually there may be significant outlay, but, ultimately, the cost to society, to local government, to the local authorities actually turns out to be a much better position?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005837\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI struggled, through this bill, to actually work out what happens from that point. Once they have identified it, where to from there? Because I actually think it\u2019s a really, really important part of emergency management to try and mitigate and remove that risk right from the very start. So it\u2019d be great if I could get answer on that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005838\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust while we\u2019re there, I\u2019ve just got another quick question on clause 27, and this is clause 27(1)(a)(iv)(B). It talks about consulting and communicating with communities. Once again, this is a committee that\u2019s basically delegated the ability to create costs, and this is throughout this bill. So I\u2019ll just use this and won\u2019t speak to this again; it is the cost aspect of some of the set up and running and management of these committees. But obviously it\u2019s the local authorities that pay for this\u2014the set up and the administration of these committees\u2014at a time when the Government has said that they\u2019re putting downward pressure to reduce rates and they\u2019re implementing rates caps. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005839\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo my question is: is this something that needs to be exempt from the rates cap so that we can ensure that local government is set up in a way that does not risk Emergency Management Committees taking shortcuts to sit within local government caps? Because it\u2019s really important that when we create something like that, local government are set up to succeed. There\u2019s potential with the rates cap that they actually look to take shortcuts. So my question is: has the Minister had any conversations with the local government Minister to actually exclude a lot of this work from the rates cap to ensure that local government can do this properly? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022b5aa271cbff524140b3540ac068b816f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005840\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b5aa271cbff524140b3540ac068b816f\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (11:58)\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, just going back to Dan Rosewarne first. Dan, you raised a really good point. Is\u2014centralising information, especially during an event\u2014that information actually getting to the right people so they\u2019ve got all the data and all the information they need to make good and better informed decisions? That is definitely dealt with in the bill, because that was a big gap that was identified in the Auckland flooding events, in Cyclone Gabrielle in the report that I received from Sir Jerry Mateparae. That is why we\u2019ve made sure that it is codified and people can understand\u2014whether you be a community organisation with a pop-up right through to our first responders\u2014where the information is going, how it\u2019s flying, and what they can expect to come back.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005841\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EComing back to Cushla, look, I take your point, but there is absolutely no intent to offend anyone in the generic use of \u201Cfacilities\u201D. Quite simply, it would come back to, as you know, when we get out on the ground you\u2019ll have faith groups that will make their facilities open, you\u2019ve got community halls, councils themselves\u2014you\u2019ve got multiple facilities and groups that come forward and provide support and help depending on the scale and size of the event that we\u2019re dealing with. Therefore, \u201Cfacilities\u201D does cover everyone off. If you went down and started to try and have an exhaustive list, it\u2019s inevitable that you\u2019re going to leave someone out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005842\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EComing back to Mike Davidson\u2019s comments, yes, I agree with you. Reduction is a huge part of the four Rs in emergency management, without a doubt. The way that our country approaches it is multifaceted from central, regional, district government. Obviously, the plans and the risk management plans have to be put together to identify what our risks are and then how we mitigate those. A big part of it is we\u2019ve put billions of dollars into reduction-type work around the country in terms of physical infrastructure to protect communities. There are some really tough issues that councils have to deal with around managed retreat. Are people actually in safe locations, and, of course, around the planning of new developments and infrastructure as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005843\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe third part of that\u2014and it\u2019s hard to quantify; it\u2019s hard to actually measure, but a change in being far more proactive and better organised around these events I think has a significant cost saving for us as well. They\u2019re all good points that you\u2019ve raised. The question of the rates cap, that quite simply is going to sit with local government to decide what their priorities are and how they\u2019re going to use the money available to them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022 data-id=\u0022e90cbee0a9d95e14da301546f73f8f66\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005844\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e90cbee0a9d95e14da301546f73f8f66\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green) (12:01)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple of quick questions from me through you to the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery. I have a question around clause 17(2) to the Minister. Could the Minister please provide a definition of what is meant by \u201Cqualified privilege\u201D. I\u2019d appreciate a layperson\u2019s definition of that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005845\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EOn clause 28(2)(c), there was a suggestion from the Human Rights Commission around\u2014let me read here so I don\u2019t misquote them. \u201CTo be consistent with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, clause 28(2)(c) should include a clear directive that resources must be provided in accessible formats.\u201D I see that clause 28(2)(c) does not currently have that. We do have a tabled amendment, the one that\u2019s in this list of 20 tabled amendments lodged by Green Party members at 8 p.m. on Thursday, 27\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005846\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002285dd7d3556e58225c4c039096f7c2563\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005847\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220c4fbc3114a499300eb1691ccb7b1bc4\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014August 2026 that would seek to address that issue. I believe that particular amendment is in the name of my colleague Kahurangi Carter around actualising the suggestion by the Human Rights Commission to make sure that the formats are accessible. The suggested tabled amendment we have is to replace it so that \u201Ctake all steps necessary or desirable to maintain and provide, or to arrange the provision of, or to otherwise make available accessible materials, services, information.\u201D\u2014just to make sure to give effect to that suggestion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u00226b2eb4eaa7da32ed5601ef8327945e0d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005848\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226b2eb4eaa7da32ed5601ef8327945e0d\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (12:03)\u003C/span\u003E: Just on the first point around qualified privilege and a definition for that, I\u2019m going to get that for you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005849\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to the second point around disabilities and our disabled community, from my experience, the plans around the country respond and anyone in the communities that are known with disabilities or need or require assistance or support gets that. We\u2019ve had incidents, obviously, with people in renal failure where it\u2019s critical that they have power. There\u2019s actually quite a bit of work being done in the bill, too, around our utilities companies, who I have to say actually do a very good job. We don\u2019t always acknowledge them, but the contractors that are out there, whether they\u2019re reinstating power or whether they\u2019re clearing roads in the middle of the night, do an outstanding job for us as a country and our community.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005850\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EObviously, there\u2019s provision in all of those risk management plans that have been done around people with disabilities and the challenges for those with disabilities and throughout the submission process as well. I also want to acknowledge the outstanding officials and team from the National Emergency Management Agency who have engaged with every part of the community around the country to make sure that all of those needs are identified and are being met through the legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022 data-id=\u002239ec5c626c547ca150ca6cd13a67845a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005851\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002239ec5c626c547ca150ca6cd13a67845a\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (12:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to quickly touch on clause 30A(2). I do note it was spoken to earlier around the fact that the associated members would be non-voting on the committee, so I won\u2019t talk about that. But I do still have a question around the associated members, and, for me, are committee members subject to any potential liability for the decisions they make? I think it\u2019s quite an important thing to know. Like, are we putting people on a committee that will not have voting rights but actually would be subject to liability for any decision that the committee makes?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005852\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat in turn leads to my next question around the difference, I guess, between being a committee member and actually being an adviser. That would actually protect those associated members and the reason, I guess, and rationale to have associated members instead of actually just appointing advisers. I was wondering if there was any advice on actually what the difference was in terms of remuneration for someone to be an associated member compared to being an adviser. I would not like to be in a situation where we create legislation and develop committees that potentially were putting people on that can\u2019t vote, so they do not have the full entitlement of other members, but yet they\u2019re held to the same accountabilities as the other members on that committee that can vote and do have the full rights. Yet they could just be brought in as advisers instead, and therefore not hold that same degree of accountability. I do have a question on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005853\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAlso I just want to move forward now to clause 36. I think this is actually quite an important thing. I do ask these questions, like all my other questions, generally just to tease them out, just to make sure there are no issues that may have been missed in this space. As we all know, local government is going through significant reforms at the moment\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005854\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b1090e94cf0737138bbeb0b42034835\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s actually why I\u2019ve allowed the member to ask these questions, because normally those bills would be in another piece of legislation, but we\u2019re in a state of change at the moment, so I\u2019m quite happy to let the member just succinctly ask. You don\u2019t need to acknowledge the local government thing other than a passing reference in your other questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005855\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225fef243af7039a7e6db9a4fe75c7db08\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Thank you for that direction. I will make sure that I keep it much more succinct.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002250401eca5f70f70c6c9a20585bbc15d5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: No, they\u2019ve been good. It\u2019s not a criticism; I\u2019m just making it clear for the committee that that is the reason why. Normally you would rule other pieces of legislation out, but we\u2019re in a state of movement here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005857\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b79687bfc9b3925ced2ec8f17f75815\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Thank you for that clarification as well. My question around clause 36\u2014and it also does touch on clause 37 as well. Obviously, in there, there\u2019s the six-month clause that they have to create these committees through a re-organisation. I just want to know what happens through the re-organisation when a current local government is basically discharged and no longer exists. In 2028, when we have new unitary authorities and we don\u2019t have regional councils and we don\u2019t have territorial councils, city councils, or district councils, we just have unitary authorities, at what point does it say, right, those older councils that are current at the moment have been discharged and no longer exist, or any committees are also discharged and then there\u2019s a six-month period where the new unitary authority can establish this committee. Now, what happens within that six-month period?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005858\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ENow, I have some amendments just to make sure that if there are any loopholes then there is actually the ability to ensure that the previous council committees are actually held on to through that six-month period. I\u2019m just a little bit concerned that because things are moving at pace within reorganisation that probably wasn\u2019t happening when this was drafted, there is the potential of a legislative gap in there for that six-month period when the existing council no longer exists and has been discharged and these new councils actually have a six-month window to create a committee, and the impact of what would happen if there was, say, an earthquake and a state of emergency was declared. So it would be great if there was a response on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022757fe4f2ffc77435a369560c6c8496ef\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005859\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022757fe4f2ffc77435a369560c6c8496ef\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (12:10)\u003C/span\u003E: So in relation to the additional members\u2014do they have voting rights? there are some restrictions, but yes, they do have some voting rights. Do they receive any payment for that? Yes, they do. So they are actually paid.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005860\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn terms of responsibility, I\u2019m glad the member raised that, because that was one of the things that was highlighted in the report that came back from Sir Jerry Mateparae is that there\u2019s got to be some levels of responsibility\u2014someone\u2019s got to be making decisions. We decided that the best place for that at a local government level was with the chief executive. I got a little bit of pushback on that, but ultimately someone has to take responsibility. I think that\u2019s a good place for it to sit, because obviously it brings into sharp focus emergency management and risk management as well. But they also have the ability to be able to delegate some of that responsibility.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022 data-id=\u0022df88b0ef67583492ac1b521abeb7607a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005861\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022df88b0ef67583492ac1b521abeb7607a\u0022\u003EDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (12:11)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Minister. So this is just in relation to clause 39. I have an amendment for this clause as well. Now, the Defence Force routinely provides a wide range of support during major emergencies. With that in mind, I had an amendment tabled on 27 August, and that\u2019s timestamped at 9.46.03 p.m. That will require within clause 39 a member of the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) assigned by the Chief of Defence Force to be a member of each Emergency Management Co-ordinating Executive Group. Now, the point of this is not to militarise emergency management. Some hold the view that the NZDF should not be as involved in emergency responses like they have in the past, but emergency management is an opportunity for the NZDF to build social licence within the communities that they serve. So I think that\u2019s very important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005862\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ESo my question is, given the significant role of the New Zealand Defence Force and what they regularly do in a major emergency response, I\u2019m wondering if we could get your thoughts on the requirement for Defence Force representation within the Emergency Management Co-ordinating Executive Group or groups. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u002218e29bcbc42d7ef710a59e4bc3d97646\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005863\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002218e29bcbc42d7ef710a59e4bc3d97646\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (12:13)\u003C/span\u003E: First of all, Dan, I acknowledge your service too with the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF). Can I just say that our New Zealand Defence Forces, in my view, have got a critical role to play in emergency management in our country. Yes, without a doubt, they are our war fighters, but if they have got the personnel, the resources, and the time to be able to support our own country during these events, then the expectation is that they do that. When I see them deploy, it is literally the communities that see them, they immediately bring a sense of safety, and it literally feels like the cavalry is coming over the hill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005864\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf I just use a very personal example, they\u2019ve got special capability. When we had the state of emergency in Kaik\u014Dura, we had one person who had been critically injured. A bridge had been washed out, and it was the middle of the night and they hadn\u2019t seen that, and they drove into the bottom of the riverbed. All access was cut off. We were dealing with floodwaters. And the Defence Force was mobilised immediately to have special capable vehicles that could navigate those floodwaters safely. We had a young woman there too who was very, very ill, and the medical staff at Kaik\u014Dura felt like she needed to have proper support at the hospital. That is where our Defence Forces step in to fill a gap that no one else can.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005865\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOn that same event, I would definitely not recommend flying in an NH90 with two broken ribs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005866\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ab32b09663ea48b199aa59e4d88f77e4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002217fd33da0af479b1d8cbb9319106ba49\u0022\u003ETim Costley\u003C/span\u003E: I always recommend flying an NH90!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005867\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bf7cda11a9d4e74a809b852544a590d2\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL\u003C/span\u003E: Ha, ha! Yeah.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005868\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228517f0bf5a717aaa6e983f28f0d39ecc\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Maybe the recommendation is to give up rugby!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005869\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223f9f8a53c4f244260a4854ce0f0d86ba\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, and Madam Chair\u2019s right; maybe I should think about hanging up my rugby boots. But, anyway, I just wanted to highlight the importance of the NZDF in the past, in the present, and in the future in terms of emergency management.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005870\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224c25fa026458a3050c5ef9568b365d85\u0022\u003EHon Dr Duncan Webb\u003C/span\u003E: Are you going to vote for the amendment?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005871\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b2ae3b01ca9c0eca62c701b1650ff8ae\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m talking to your colleague. If you respect him, then let me address the issues that he\u2019s raised, right. I don\u2019t know why, you\u2019re an outgoing member, but you seem to have this real sense of entitlement that you can interrupt everyone.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005872\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a6dee0a4090da3b0c88fa4761003850b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: No, no, no. Minister, stop and address the question to the member who asked you the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005873\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b8572b289b0d8a03dfa848b02be8267b\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL\u003C/span\u003E: Well, maybe a little bit of decorum from\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005874\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002209790fff10b694cbf3a77a21688dee95\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, we don\u2019t attack members from the chair. I\u2019ll deal with that if I need to\u2014I\u2019ll deal with Mr Webb if the need arises.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005875\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022452faa710270ce4a25e0c06d0172862c\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish you the best of luck.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005876\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EYeah, so the New Zealand Defence Force obviously has got a big role to play in emergency management in New Zealand and will continue to have that role. Of course, they have a seat around the table\u2014a critical seat around the table\u2014at any event that we have, whether it\u2019s a local state of emergency where you\u2019ll have a defence liaison officers in the emergency operations centre (EOC), coordinating and working with the mayor, with the controller, with the entire EOC team. At a national state of emergency, we have a dedicated facility, obviously, in our bunker, where the New Zealand Defence Force will be making decisions, advising the Prime Minister, the Minister, and working with our emergency management leadership.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022 data-id=\u0022ecec9c26af1fecd8171ad46d3b3cf517\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005877\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ecec9c26af1fecd8171ad46d3b3cf517\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (12:16)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to keep moving forward. I have a couple of questions. The first one\u2019s in relation to clause 38(4). It says, \u201CUnless the local authority members of the Committee agree otherwise, each local authority member of the Committee must pay an equal share of the costs\u201D. Now, I just want to check, because obviously my interpretation of that, and I assume it\u2019s right, is like if there were two local authorities, it\u2019d be 50/50.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005878\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m just wondering if that creates a slight issue if, potentially\u2014and you look at, say, Christchurch City, which has 400,000 people. Even if they amalgamated to include, say, Selwyn and Waimakariri and it gets bigger, and suddenly they link up with Hurunui. So it becomes there\u2019s a Hurunui and Kaik\u014Dura unitary authority and they join up with Greater Christchurch\u2014600,000 to 700,000 people. So suddenly you\u2019re saying, \u201CRight, the cost of it being a major, major area is not going to be small, but yet we\u2019re going to divvy that up 50/50\u201D, where Christchurch, obviously, will have a lot more resources, and the smaller one, that would be Hurunui and Kaik\u014Dura, if they did amalgamate, would obviously have a lot more pressure put on them because of that. I\u2019m just wondering with the Minister if that\u2019s the right way to go about that with equal share and if it should not be proportionate to, actually, the size of the local authorities and actually be population-based. I did not get an amendment done, I think, because I was just reading through it and though, \u201COh, this could be a slight issue for some of those smaller councils.\u201D So it would be great if the Minister could consider that\u2014if there\u2019s a potential inequity there for some of the smaller councils.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005879\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I just wanted to move forward to clause 39. I do have an amendment on this one. I\u2019ve got so much paper; I just need to find it. It\u2019s stamp dated 27 August 8.00.01. Clause 39 is obviously the appointment of the Emergency Management Co-ordinating Executive Group. Clearly, it lists through there the people that need to be on this group. It is a large group of people\u2014very important people\u2014to be on there. Through that process, obviously, there\u2019s a few strikeouts. One of the strikeouts that was in there was the chief executive of a senior member\u2014so this is clause 39(2)(e), where it strikes out \u201Cand disability services\u201D, which I kind of get where that is. But when we look through that, I think it\u2019s missing a significant person on this group, which is someone who is actually connected to the disability communities in the area. We do know that people with disabilities are very vulnerable at these times, and I think by not having someone on there, we actually miss an important voice. So my amendment is actually a very simple amendment, and it will become 39(2)(h), \u201Cone or more persons with knowledge, experience, and expertise regarding the interests and needs of the disability communities in the area\u201D. I just feel by having that one extra person on there, we would actually be in a much better position.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005880\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s actually a little bit striking in the bill, the lack of times \u201Cdisability\u201D is actually mentioned in this bill. I\u2019m not too sure why that is, because we accept that people with disabilities obviously are a lot more vulnerable when there is a disaster. We need to ensure that their needs are really well catered for, because they do have different needs from people that do not have disabilities. I think if we do not have someone with that lived experience or that knowledge of those communities, then potentially we have created a significant gap that will end up hurting some of our most vulnerable people in society. So I do urge the Minister to consider this recommendation, and I\u2019d love to get his advice on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005881\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust quickly before I\u2014actually, I\u2019ll let the Minister respond to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u002282c8ffcd2a64d7f9241df2c82f78204f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005882\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002282c8ffcd2a64d7f9241df2c82f78204f\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (12:21)\u003C/span\u003E: Firstly, I just want to make a quick clarification that in terms of members that are eligible to be remunerated, they are eligible, but it doesn\u2019t necessarily mean that they will be; they\u2019re just eligible. So I just wanted to clear that matter up for the member.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005883\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo just coming to your last point first, in relation to people with disabilities. In a state of emergency, they are our most vulnerable. I just want to assure the member that whether it be our first responders, whether it be our controllers, the people in their emergency operations centres, our communities, iwi, hap\u016B, everyone\u2019s focus will go to identifying and responding to the most vulnerable. That is basically the core of our responses in this country. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005884\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust going back to the issue that you raised about reorganisation, the bill\u2019s reorganisations provisions are carried over from the current Act, and the six-month time line for the formation of an Emergency Management Committee begins once the local government reorganisation is effective. So that addresses directly the issue that the member raised. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005885\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust coming back to Francisco\u2019s question around qualified privilege. So the definition is: this is qualified immunity from liability or defamation if the statement is made in good faith and in the public interest.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022 data-id=\u0022050e3cfb33c0f168bd80f69db6f76f78\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005886\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022050e3cfb33c0f168bd80f69db6f76f78\u0022\u003ECUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour\u2014Ikaroa-R\u0101whiti) (12:23)\u003C/span\u003E: Kia ora, Madam Chair. I will continue the way I started, and I would like to ask the remaining questions I have for Part 2, which range between clauses 43 and 76.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005887\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo my first question to the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery is, in clause 43, we know the pressure that a lot of councils are under at this time, with infrastructure expenses, rates rises, etc., that they\u2019ve got to deal with, so how will small and rural councils meet the responsibilities in clause 43 when they have limited staff and small rating bases? Is there additional funding being provided to councils with high disaster risk but limited resources? Clause 43\u2014how quickly will councils be reimbursed for emergency spending?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005888\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMoving to clause 52(2)\u2014what minimum training and experience will controllers be required to have?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 59\u2014what happens when national priorities conflict with what local communities urgently need?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005890\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMoving now to clauses 65 to 68, recovery managers\u2014how does the bill ensure recovery is locally led and what role specifically will iwi, hap\u016B, and marae have in making recovery decisions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005891\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMoving to clause 74(a)\u2014what minimum resilience standards will power, telecommunications, and other essential infrastructure providers have to meet? What has changed to prevent communities again losing power, phones, and communications, as happened quite dramatically during Cyclone Gabrielle and, of course, other weather events across Aotearoa?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005892\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 76\u2014why can the Minister exempt an essential infrastructure provider from requirements, and will every exemption and the reason for granting it be made public? Thank you, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022 data-id=\u002217071264d768af552dddb5da45a4dcd8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002217071264d768af552dddb5da45a4dcd8\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green) (12:25)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just also moving to clause 45, but before I do that, I just had a quick question around clause 39(2)(f), (g), and (2A). Just following on from the point that my colleague Mike Davidson made around the potential for appointing someone with lived experience of disability within these Emergency Management Co-ordinating Executive Groups. Is it the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery\u2019s expectation that subclause (2A) provides the ability for the Emergency Management Co-ordinating Executive Group to be able to co-opt people from the disabled communities or with lived experience of disability into these Co-ordinating Executive Groups?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005894\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll move on to clause 45 as well. Now, this was a big issue that came up during the select committee discussions. That\u2019s my understanding from my colleague Mike Davidson, who actually participated in these discussions. Sadly, I was in my other select committee, the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Clause 45(1)(a) provides the potential for costs to be reimbursed of costs that have been incurred by local authorities or water organisations. We do know that this is really one of the most frequent points that was made by submitters: why it was just those two categories that are eligible for direct reimbursement. We do know, of course, Minister, that emergency management is an all-of-society function that people all across the motu do participate in emergency management. So why is it that just local authorities and water organisations are eligible for direct reimbursement from the central government? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005895\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe do know that there are pathways and mechanisms in place for these groups to be able to seek costs from local government. But we are worried that these pathways are potentially constrained. We do know that local government is undergoing a significant period of disruption and reorganisation. We do know that local governments are being told to tighten their belts, and we do feel that direct reimbursements coming from central government could potentially be a better way rather than requiring people to go through local government. Because we do know that central government does have a greater level of capacity to be able to reimburse people, and we do know that sometimes where costs that are incurred across and between different local government boundaries, it might be more efficient to actually have them handled in a more centralised way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005896\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo, for example, if I incur costs trying to help people across the Dunedin and Queenstown Lakes District Council boundaries, it\u2019s probably more effective for the central government to just reimburse me if I\u2019m operating at a cross-regional or even at a national scale, rather than having to hit up every single local government organisation to ask for a reimbursement. We do have amendments that we filed to that effect, which would enable direct reimbursement mechanisms of these groups in the 36 tabled amendments lodged by Green Party members at 9.45 on Thursday, 27 August 2026. We\u2019d love for the Minister to really explain the logic of why there isn\u2019t any direct reimbursement mechanisms that are being offered to individuals, groups, or people that do partake in the emergency management space, and why the direct reimbursement mechanism has just been limited to local governments and water authorities. Thank you, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u00228d2323798590c76441144ef084cdbf13\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005897\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228d2323798590c76441144ef084cdbf13\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (12:30)\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s a really good question. I think that there are other mechanisms, of course. Central government does have a big role to play in making sure that funding gets out, especially around critical infrastructure and things like that, but, fundamentally, the whole premise of our emergency management system is set up on being locally led, because a council is far more plugged into its local community and has a better understanding of what they need than central government sat down here in Wellington.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005898\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe sad thing, Francisco\u2014and Cyclone Gabrielle sort of highlighted this\u2014is that the Government can send money out, but if there\u2019s a separation, then, unfortunately, there are people that are out there that do try to exploit the system, without a doubt, even through a state of emergency recovery, which is sad. You\u2019d like to think that we wouldn\u2019t do that, but there are people that do do that. The best control mechanism is to have that controlled at a local level. Fundamentally, that is why the central governments prefer to be able to fund through the council and work with the council and support the council in the delivery of these projects.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005899\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy own personal experience as Minister is that this is by far the best mechanism to do that: to make sure that you\u2019ve got good relationships, that you\u2019re focused on the delivery, and that you\u2019re allowing the people actually on the ground in the community\u2014and some of these infrastructure projects that we\u2019re delivering, like the stopbanks, are very complicated. It involves lots of property rights, and the best people to be able to negotiate that and work through them are actually the people on the ground themselves.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005900\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b69804181512efd8f3588aadf3cdd0d5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m coming very close\u2014I\u2019m going to let Mike Davidson just round up his questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022 data-id=\u0022cf517211787014614567369f2cc2ec45\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005901\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cf517211787014614567369f2cc2ec45\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (12:32)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s actually going to be really, really short, because I just want to make sure that the point I was trying to make hasn\u2019t been missed. Also, I would like to acknowledge and thank the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery, because he\u2019s been really responsive and engaging with this committee of the whole House stage. I just wanted to check, because I did ask a question on clause\u00A026(b)\u2014around what would happen if commissioners were in place\u2014which hasn\u2019t been answered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005902\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other thing I just want to quickly touch on\u2014because I absolutely agree with the Minister when he spoke about, actually, the response during emergencies, to people with disabilities\u2014it\u2019s outstanding. But what I was trying to work out was actually around, I guess\u2014and it talks about it in clause 40\u2014the role of an emergency management committee. Was it clause 43? Sorry, I\u2019ve lost all my things\u2014but, around the role of the committee, where I spoke to my oversight group, which I spoke to in my amendment earlier around having someone with a disability on it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005903\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, part of the role of that group\u2014if I can find the right page\u2014is to, obviously, oversee and implement the development, maintenance, monitoring, and evaluation of the regional emergency management plan. I guess this is why I think it\u2019s really important that we do have someone that has a really expert knowledge with disability communities to be on that group, because it\u2019s that group that\u2019s obviously going to be overseeing the monitoring and the evaluation of the emergency management plan. That is why I thought, actually, there\u2019s potentially a gap there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005904\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do totally agree that, when there is an emergency, people with disabilities are looked after well and are front and centre, but I just wanted to really make sure that we did not have a gap in this legislation in the make-up of those committees without someone with that expert knowledge of the disability community. I do acknowledge what you said and I totally agree with what you said. I just wanted to make sure we weren\u2019t talking across paths and that there was actually still a gap in that committee. Unfortunately, my papers are a little bit spread out, so I can\u2019t quite find that amendment again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u002212d5b56d102c6e89b732adf0c6290149\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005905\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002212d5b56d102c6e89b732adf0c6290149\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (12:34)\u003C/span\u003E: No, no, that\u2019s fine. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, you\u2019re right. Sorry, I did have the information there for you around a commissioner. The Local Government Act provides that a commissioner appointed for a local authority must perform the functions, duties, and powers of the local authority and its members under any enactment, and that includes this bill as well. Sorry about that, but yes, I hope that answers your question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005906\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn relation to the provision for our disabled community, they are accounted for through the engagement requirements and the requirement that regional plans address their needs. There\u2019s also flexibility to add any member who has skills and knowledge that will assist. Disability is not specifically mentioned but is clearly captured in the definition of disproportionately affected communities, so yes, you can have someone appointed to that board.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005907\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002212d29e85da4502d585ff071994bf543f\u0022\u003EMike Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, sorry, could I just have one quick clarification on that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005908\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aaa9d0726ac1aa0fc59268bf56c7a5b3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Just a quick clarification.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022 data-id=\u002206f4726af92e43a68f96c0039ce51a48\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005909\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002206f4726af92e43a68f96c0039ce51a48\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (12:35)\u003C/span\u003E: I guess, when I look at the clause\u2014and I\u2019ve just found the paper\u2014it lists the people that can go on it, which is clause 39(2)(a) to (h). That bit where they can co-opt someone has been struck out, so the list is actually limited to who\u2019s on that list.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022f2a556e81836c73d4c3e7a3250ed0934\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f2a556e81836c73d4c3e7a3250ed0934\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (12:36)\u003C/span\u003E: Apparently, it\u2019s been replaced by clause 39(2)(a), so they should be able to co-opt whoever they want on to that board.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022 data-id=\u0022391e1333b08f68661f7b3edf0890a95d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005911\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022391e1333b08f68661f7b3edf0890a95d\u0022\u003ETOM RUTHERFORD (National\u2014Bay of Plenty) (12:36)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005912\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005913\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229e5995363bbbc1e5a031c66c89d412b6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 750 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005914\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002229da01d316626fc32c298ddb3c711a88\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendment replacing clause 14(a) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005916\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005917\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005918\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005919\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005920\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005921\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005922\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002200cbf8de23554848103a36d6e6a392af\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Celia Wade-Brown\u2019s tabled amendment inserting clause 14(da) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005923\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005924\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005926\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005927\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005928\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005929\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e108dbd3b0b573ddc6e7ce9085bf8b46\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 14 inserting new paragraph (l) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005930\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005931\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005932\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005933\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005934\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005936\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224d6ce6562e0b2b91c8d1fe0b0d233f29\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Francisco Hernandez\u2019 tabled amendment inserting clause 15(4)(ca) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005937\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005938\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005939\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005940\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005941\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005942\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005943\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222194237a83029ece4db27279c7f209a3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke\u2019s amendment inserting new clause 26(a) set out on Amendment Paper 735 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005944\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005945\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fb36693fff04d526fd62135779804a7c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke\u2019s amendments replacing clauses 27 and 28 set out Amendment Paper 737 be agreed\u00A0to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005946\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005947\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005948\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005949\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005950\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005951\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005952\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225feb7a2221fd61f297a8cdb6722aa32e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Dan Rosewarne\u2019s tabled amendment inserting clause 27(1)(a)(v) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005953\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005954\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005955\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005956\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005957\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005958\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002250c9eaddc7783d58f240e93e3bf30363\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Mike Davidson\u2019s tabled amendment inserting clause 27(1)(l) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005960\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005961\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005962\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005963\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005964\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005965\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005966\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226993f94c719a4ae7178a4404308c7256\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Dan Rosewarne\u2019s tabled amendment replacing clause 28(2)(a)(iv) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005967\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005968\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005969\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005970\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005971\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005972\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005973\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002246a61b2313a7f29f4236209f914ee72b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Kahurangi Carter\u2019s tabled amendment replacing clause 28(2)(c) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005974\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005976\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005977\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005978\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005979\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005980\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002286bfa7d5acaf29df91ad81237a1ca277\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Mike Davidson\u2019s tabled amendment inserting clause 28(2)(m) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005981\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005982\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005983\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005985\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005986\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005987\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b10334484cb235da2b9a74db99c94946\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Cushla Tangaere-Manuel\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 29(2)(e) inserting \u201Cincluding marae\u201D be agreed\u00A0to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005988\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005989\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005990\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005991\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005992\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005993\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005994\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022030077d7988b9c2ce28dfa9103d67542\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Mike Davidson\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 30A(2) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005995\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005996\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005997\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005998\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520005999\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006000\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022367dcc14ec5b191686c5edffc85bd2a7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Mike Davidson\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 36 inserting new subclause (6) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221e673ae02843957cc1ffc48989e65274\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Mike Davidson\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 37 inserting new subclause (8) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222ed9ed477d0a6beb096530762ae11427\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Dan Rosewarne\u2019s tabled amendment inserting clause 39(2)(f) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220f8fcf5fa429301e7a64740f20e1f578\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Scott Willis\u2019 tabled amendment to clause 39(2) replacing paragraph (h) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225580e2f8875e5b5fefd22dd65b507b93\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Mike Davidson\u2019s tabled amendment inserting clause 39(2)(h) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e6165989eb4b3433e3bf22c1005f8f5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Dan Rosewarne\u2019s tabled amendment inserting clause 40(d) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002217255c5ecbd13014e73daf63abc67901\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Mike Davidson\u2019s tabled amendment inserting new clause 43B be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227f7d6b2b98286ea4ce25bdec96f306f2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke\u2019s amendments to clause 45 set out on Amendment Paper 736 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002288865c22ddef1088d2a5ae85eeaf5616\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Now, those people to my right-hand side, excluding the Minister, should not need to be reminded at this late stage in the parliamentary cycle that we do not talk during voting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMike Davidson\u2019s tabled amendments to the heading, to clause 45, and replacing clause 45(1)(a) are out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFrancisco Hernandez\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 45 inserting new paragraph (c) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 45(1) replacing paragraph (a) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226ee66a1c02931fef866c32609a14eeed\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Mike Davidson\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 45(2) replacing paragraph (a) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022725144e1ad7620b63fed5655d688f98e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u2019s tabled amendment inserting new clause 45B be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002239f251f6e440e0de1c7c72b3d4b36b6d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Mike Davidson\u2019s tabled amendment inserting new clause 45B be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220b0e775ddeb91ab657ddf809ebf71bbf\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Francisco Hernandez\u2019s tabled amendment inserting new clause 69(2)(aa) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002290e637f95c4f4f126468f6462051bb0c\u0022\u003ERicardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u003C/span\u003E: The noes have it\u2014party vote.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fe340e21f59187887278e12b98ab0ad4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019d already declared the Ayes have it. I think there\u2019s a dispute\u2014I\u2019d already declared the vote.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a29a0e0cfae6cb759bd7b75f7ee0f49c\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s a proxy vote - related matter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022426310bacf987feecc597e1239b1378f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: So the Green Party\u2019s happy, because I\u2019d already declared the vote. If the Green Party needs to correct a vote, there is an opportunity to do that. But I\u2019ve called the vote as it was and it was all in favour.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u00225e890720fa74692494134bfcf92ab529\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225e890720fa74692494134bfcf92ab529\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Musterer\u2014Green) (12:58)\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. I seek leave to correct the vote on Part 2 to cast Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori\u2019s vote as opposed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f3ae77718dbe92a9666aceca64d10b01\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: So leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. The member may cast the M\u0101ori Party vote.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cdc0c9e97695eb18cbaf70100c47e080\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH\u003C/span\u003E: So Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori\u2019s vote as well as Mariameno Kapa-Kingi would be one vote opposed each.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229c5d722920524de7ae8538c0bf57631d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: OK. The record will reflect that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMembers, it\u2019s time for me to leave the Chair for the lunch break. The Chair will resume at 2 p.m., when we will begin Part 3.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterItalicsCentred\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 12.58 p.m. to 2 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d46c1ff291a7e59a27085c6fd52605ce\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u002273d8728e20d852adbef23fc45387bb7b\u0022\u003EPart 3 Emergency Management System Planning\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228e9f56268963659fa9e0076d239508fc\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Afternoon, members. The committee is resumed on the Emergency Management Bill (No 2). When we suspended for the lunch break, we had completed voting on Part 2 We come now to Part 3, which is the debate on clauses\u00A077 to 106, \u201CEmergency management system planning\u201D. The question is that Part 3 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022 data-id=\u002275a59aed463522b7f5535809a756f6b9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002275a59aed463522b7f5535809a756f6b9\u0022\u003ECUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour\u2014Ikaroa-R\u0101whiti) (14:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Kia ora, Madam Chair. As I have with Part 1 and Part 2, I will ask my questions as a cluster, but I note that I\u2019m still waiting for responses to questions I asked on Part 2, ranging from clauses 43 to 76\u2014thank you, Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMoving to Part 3, these questions will range between clauses 80 to 96. Starting at clause 80, where does the bill require m\u0101tauranga M\u0101ori and local iwi knowledge to inform emergency planning? I\u2019m thinking of the likes of M\u0101haki Tiaki Tangata in Te Karaka, who have innate knowledge of their rivers, etc., and were actually key to the response and to liaising with their council in recent weather events, so I\u2019d like to know when that will be required. Why does the bill rely on consultation rather than requiring M\u0101ori to be involved in co-designing emergency plans?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of clause 94(b), what counts as meaningful engagement with iwi and M\u0101ori? Must councils show how M\u0101ori input actually changed the final plan? How will isolated rural communities and marae be included? And, in clause 96, if the Minister overrides a regional plan, must affected communities be consulted first?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u00221c76478a6c3a37484f140de7bc675835\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221c76478a6c3a37484f140de7bc675835\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (14:02)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, just very quickly, the member Cushla Tangaere-Manuel is right. I hadn\u2019t addressed some of the questions she asked on Part 2, so if I could just take the opportunity now, Madam Chair, to address those?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226116fa181cf73084de5b8ca4f8fd46ce\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, although we are on Part 3. Just carry on with those answers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002297a4e8e5eb4cc0a9cbc9cdc8783f4441\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Do you want me to carry on?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002216130d4b7ea9f689e4227a339a927e98\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: You can if you need to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c0b919449d8c27753a387fc4e48766fa\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL\u003C/span\u003E: Just very quickly\u2014how will the bill ensure it is locally led, specifically including the role of iwi and the marae? I fully agree that we need stronger recovery plans and that this should be locally led. I draw the member\u2019s attention to the definition of \u201Crecovery activities\u201D in clause 8, which include measures to enable community participation. This includes participation by iwi and M\u0101ori. I\u2019ll leave it here because that does cover off some of the other substantive questions that were put to me on Part 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022 data-id=\u00222fd58c35c9ce84fdae72a6b1f8e0c45a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222fd58c35c9ce84fdae72a6b1f8e0c45a\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green) (14:03)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery for his really constructive and fulsome engagement in this process so far.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy questions are around clauses 77(2) and 79(2)(ba). Of course, we are the Green Party, so we\u2019d always like some tighter integration between climate change adaptation objectives and the national emergency management strategy, but I do note that clause\u00A077(2)(a) potentially provides the power for a future Government to just issue that. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E] A bit of a conversation with the Minister here. I\u2019m just going back to the point I wanted to make around the national emergency management strategy. Is there power in either clause 77(2)(a) or (b) for a future Government, if they were so inclined, to have climate change adaptation be the objective set by that secondary legislation? That is my first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy second question is around clause 79(2)(ba), \u201Cconsult representatives of the following groups regarding the proposed replacement strategy or the proposed amendments to the strategy:\u201D. I really wanted to recognise that it\u2019s good to see explicit mentions of iwi and M\u0101ori under subparagraph (ii) and rural communities under subparagraph (iii). Was any consideration given to expanding that list to include, for example, the disability community, the ethnic community, people who we do know are disproportionately impacted?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do recognise that is, potentially, covered by paragraph (ba)(i), but why is it that those categories of people are not explicitly mentioned compared to subparagraphs (ii) and (iii), and would the Minister potentially consider expanding the list of communities that are explicitly named in clause 79(2)(ba)?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022f252290ad9565eaac0c48b840f955107\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f252290ad9565eaac0c48b840f955107\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (14:05)\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s a really good question. I\u2019ll get some further advice on it, but I think, primarily that reason why iwi and M\u0101ori and rural communities are specifically listed is because this is where we see the majority of the gaps that we really need to fill, and I think you are right too when you draw attention to subparagraph (i) of clause 79(2)(ba), as it states, \u201Cany community that the Director-General considers to be a disproportionately affected community:\u201D can be included, and our disability community would be captured in that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022 data-id=\u0022ea57dcdae6b13750762dcde07790c2a6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ea57dcdae6b13750762dcde07790c2a6\u0022\u003EDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (14:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. This is in relation to clause 80, \u201CMatters persons must have regard to in development of emergency management plans\u201D. Now, throughout any emergency response, information that you get is rarely perfect and decisions are often needed to be made before all the facts are actually available.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat I\u2019m keen to understand is how the plans developed under clause 80 balance that technical expertise, that local knowledge, that community experience, and that incomplete information, because, in the real world, planners might have modelling that suggests a particular risk is low while a community that has lived through repeated flooding might have a very different view. Equally, an agency may know that a particular road, bridge, or stopbank is vulnerable long before any formal evidence base is complete.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI suppose my question there is: when those developing those emergency management plans are considering risks under clause 80, how does the bill ensure that local knowledge and practical experience are given appropriate weight alongside technical assessments, particularly when the available information is incomplete or uncertain?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u00228ee1651c258d84e0b5acce5890593b64\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228ee1651c258d84e0b5acce5890593b64\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (14:07)\u003C/span\u003E: In response to Cushla\u2019s earlier question, first of all, in relation to compelling, I\u2019d like to see anyone that could compel any marae to engage if it is shown that it wasn\u2019t a good idea. We don\u2019t want to go down that road anyway, but, as noted during the debate on Part 2, the coordinating executive group oversees the regional emergency management plan. These groups will be required to include members who represent local M\u0101ori knowledge and interests, so there is actually a requirement in the legislation. It\u2019s actually legislated that M\u0101ori and iwi will have a seat on that board, which is the board responsible for the heavy lifting and the planning for their area in emergency management.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022 data-id=\u0022dd6d160852f63fa47202ec8635c7c7a8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dd6d160852f63fa47202ec8635c7c7a8\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (14:08)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to follow on from my colleague beside me and talk to clause 79(2). In relation to, obviously, consulting with persons that the Minister feels is appropriate, and that is found it subclause (2)(ba), about consulting with representatives, and, as previously mentioned, that could include the disability community. It is really good that the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery clarified that. I think where this is really important is that we understand from previous discussions that a lot of people in the disability community are more vulnerable than others, and we need to ensure that we take good care in that space.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI just want to talk to an amendment that my Green colleague Steve Abel has put forward. It\u2019s timestamped 27 August, 9.45.28. It would come in after clause 79(2) and it would insert a new subclause (2A), and it says that consultation must be conducted in a manner that is accessible to disabled people, including, where appropriate, with the use of New Zealand Sign Language, Easy Read, and other accessible formats and channels.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EObviously, the rationale behind this is just to make sure that we don\u2019t create any legislative gaps inside this bill\u2014that, actually, we just go and do standard consultation and forget, when we\u2019re dealing with a very significant group that\u2019s disproportionately affected, that we don\u2019t actually communicate with them in a way that\u2019s easily understood. Obviously, in times of emergencies, etc., it\u2019s quite chaotic, and, actually, the more information that we can give to people in a way that\u2019s easily understood, the better it is for them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs you\u2019ll see from all of our amendments we\u2019ve put forward, we\u2019ve been trying to create some small improvements to the bill. We support the bill, and it\u2019s in a good space, but we just think there are a few things that could be done to even lift it to the next level. I think this one actually creates quite a good outcome where we just make sure that, through legislation which we know is more rigid, consultation with people in the disability community is done in a way that it actually is easy for them to understand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022570855a5e41e2385478b8057ab79610a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022570855a5e41e2385478b8057ab79610a\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (14:11)\u003C/span\u003E: I just want to acknowledge the amendment in Steve\u2019s name and the fact that, rightly so, you\u2019ve got to focus on our disabled community, because they are the ones that are often most vulnerable in these events. I just want to reassure the member that they have definitely been covered off right from the start of consultation on this bill. Our officials, who I acknowledge again, have been quite simply outstanding in making sure they engage with everyone that\u2019s impacted and affected in emergency management, including our disabled community. If I come back to clause 79(2)(ba)(i), the director-general has got the ability to be able to\u2014if we need someone or someone has come forward in terms of advancing issues in relation to the disabled community, they are able to have a seat on that group.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022 data-id=\u00225b666046f742aa2616f8a3576fb70b50\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225b666046f742aa2616f8a3576fb70b50\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green) (14:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick question around clause 79A, which is \u201CPresentation of national emergency management strategy to House of Representatives\u201D. Just from the way that I\u2019m reading this section, it seems like the House of Representatives either has two choices when it gets presented with the strategy. They can either, obviously, vote to approve it or vote to not approve it. I just wanted to check with the Minister: are there any powers for the House of Representatives to amend the national emergency management strategy once it\u2019s been presented to it, or is it a linear no and then it goes back to the Minister and the Minister having to amend it, or are there any, I guess, powers that I\u2019ve not read here for the House of Representatives to directly amend that national emergency management strategy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u00222d038dbef65ca37b2cb35d96323a8835\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222d038dbef65ca37b2cb35d96323a8835\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (14:13)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just very quickly, Francisco, I think that the plans will go to the director-general and the Minister will have oversight on that also; that will also go to the Minister. If the plans weren\u2019t consistent or they weren\u2019t actually meeting the requirements of the legislation, they\u2019d be sent back for changes to be made. I don\u2019t know whether a select committee process or a broader parliamentary oversight would be involved in that. I will get some advice on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EComing back to the question around national strategy, the strategy\u2019s purpose is to set out the Crown\u2019s long-term goals and objectives for emergency management. It can consider climate change issues, as the current strategy does, to the extent that these issues fall within the bill\u2019s purpose.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECan I just come back to Dan. Balancing technical experts and local views is critically important, because you don\u2019t just want an academic lens across things; you want to actually have a practical lens across things, from people that are on the ground and actually involved in this work. This is what the bill\u2019s planning process is intended to achieve, and we want these arrangements to be figured out ahead of the emergency itself.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224d4be7f5ade27a5c8b614d0e5096d5ce\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e3600b541ea0617b9eb862279e72f2ff\u0022\u003EFrancisco Hernandez\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002295939925ee2624ff6901f5ef798a585a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Oh. You\u2019ll have to be quicker than that, Francisco. Francisco Hernandez\u2014very lucky.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022 data-id=\u002253d111969026be11d85279b91bd1a25e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002253d111969026be11d85279b91bd1a25e\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green) (14:14)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair, for the enthusiasm that you greeted my call with. Just a question around clause 80(2)(c) around the matters that persons must have regard to in the development of the emergency management plans. Under clause 80(2)(c), \u201CThe person must have regard to \u2026 New Zealand\u2019s international obligations (to the extent relevant).\u201D I was wondering whether the Minister had considered the submission from the Human Rights Commission and Deaf Aotearoa to potentially specify a non-exhaustive list of New Zealand\u2019s international obligations that might be considered, particularly considering things like the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Would there be potential to list those in (2)(c) in a non-exhaustive way?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EOf course, we do have an amendment that actualises that, under the grouping that was submitted as \u201C20 tabled amendments lodged by Green Party members at 8 p.m. on Thursday, 27 August 2026\u201D under my colleague Celia Wade-Brown. It currently doesn\u2019t have anything on it\u2014it just says \u201CNew Zealand\u2019s international obligations\u201D\u2014but we do agree with the recommendation by the Human Rights Commission that potentially illustrating what legislation might come into that would be a potentially good way to flesh out this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022719408ecda31b836858ca785a98ef2f6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022719408ecda31b836858ca785a98ef2f6\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (14:16)\u003C/span\u003E: The question that was put to me by the member Francisco Hernandez in relation to House approval of strategy\u2014the House may either approve or not approve, but the House can\u2019t directly make amendments. It\u2019s a given that the House would give its reasons, and these should be taken into account, though.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022 data-id=\u002212e6f35f20c3fcf672cf861b1ae9992b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002212e6f35f20c3fcf672cf861b1ae9992b\u0022\u003EHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (14:17)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I didn\u2019t actually intend to take a call on this, but having gone through it and listening to the Minister\u2019s response, specifically around clause 79A and the presentation of the strategy to the House, I am keen to further understand this. As a former Minister, having gone through Cyclone Gabrielle, I have particular interest in this part here. The Minister will know that I think it\u2019s fair to say that there\u2019s been a large amount of collaboration on this. This bill has been a long time in the making, and we\u2019ve got a real opportunity as a House to send to the country a message that this is one of those areas that there\u2019s really no room for politics, frankly. I think, in fairness to the Minister, he has taken that on in his time in this role.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EYour response then, Minister, to that question around the option available to the House\u2014whether to approve it or not\u2014I\u2019m just keen to flesh that out for the understanding of the committee. Does that mean that there will be a debate on this, like there was for the National Infrastructure Plan, for example\u2014another area where there was widespread support? Frankly, the way that that was gone about\u2014where there was a debate that was done in a collaborative way; the Minister, Chris Bishop, accepted my offer to have a foreword by the Labour Party, and then he extended that to the Green Party\u2014I think that\u2019s really set the scene amongst the infrastructure sector around how Parliament is actually taking this quite seriously now. If there is going to be a debate on this strategy so that the House can then decide whether to endorse it or not, would that be something the Minister would be interested in\u2014to have a foreword from the Opposition to sort of demonstrate the areas in the strategy that we have broad support for?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022c9c763552791224d5a4010144523b15b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c9c763552791224d5a4010144523b15b\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (14:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Firstly, can I acknowledge the Hon Kieran McAnulty, because I took over from him. He was the Minister for Emergency Management under the previous Government, and they had already done a lot of the heavy lifting on this bill. There were some changes that we wanted to make to it, and the reality of it was it was a bit far out of scope, so we had to actually have it discharged so we could do that. But I want to acknowledge that there had already been a significant amount of work done on this bill under him as Minister, so it\u2019s important for me to be able to do that publicly, and thank you for giving me the opportunity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn terms of emergency management, we\u2019ve all agreed that this is cross-party. There are two things that should be bipartisan: one is national security and one is emergency management. So I\u2019d be very open to that. I\u2019d have to get some advice on it, but I\u2019d be very open to that, because in the spirit\u2014it\u2019s easy to talk about it, but, actually, we\u2019ve just got to keep doing it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022 data-id=\u0022e83400fafba33d2abf879750d6571b0b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e83400fafba33d2abf879750d6571b0b\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green) (14:20)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is around moving on now to Subpart 4, which I believe is still in Part 3, and clause\u00A093(c). We do have a proposal on the Table here, and we have been really consistent throughout the select committee process and throughout the committee of the whole House process on the need to tighten the integration between climate change adaptation and emergency management.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe amendment that I have drafted in this space\u2014which is on the 36\u003Csup\u003Eth\u003C/sup\u003E tabled amendment lodged by Green Party members at 9.45 a.m. on Thursday, 27 August 2026\u2014specifically borrows the language that the Government has drafted around the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill, which brings in the adaptation objectives in an upcoming bill. It\u2019s been introduced to the House, but it hasn\u2019t had its first reading yet. I\u2019ve borrowed, literally, the drafting in that section and adapted it to new clause 93(d), because what the current draft of the Government\u2019s Climate Change Response Amendment Bill legislation will do is that, if it passes\u2014because of the sequencing of this bill passing first\u2014it will amend a piece of legislation that will no longer exist. What I\u2019ve done is draft the equivalent clause from it in this clause, which would move it to the emergency management committees from the groups. It\u2019s basically saying that it must have regard to any current climate change adaptation plans within the committees\u2019 area, and for any aspects of that plan that relate to strategic recovery to give effect to any current adaptation plan adopted that is within the committees\u2019 area. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe do know that, currently, there is no legislative duty for any councils to prepare local adaptation plans. That is coming up in the legislation that the Government has introduced, but we do know that some councils have already prepared local adaptation plans within their area. It would be good for any emergency management committees to have the power to be able to give effect to any adaptation plans that have already been developed in their area, even though they\u2019re not currently required to be doing so. I\u2019m really keen to have that be put forward and adopted by the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery because, as I\u2019ve said, this is already in a draft of Government legislation that\u2019s before the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u00221515990320bb1cd09d8828ee09e0bbb6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221515990320bb1cd09d8828ee09e0bbb6\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (14:23)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just with the advice I\u2019ve received from officials for the Hon Kieran McAnulty, the House will determine how the strategy will be debated. This will be addressed in the Standing Orders, and clause 79A exists to make sure the House has a role in emergency management in peacetime.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022df3e6766443b46819410ad4fedf34077\u0022 data-id=\u00221a44777262353f52efc1ba0ea23bf6da\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df3e6766443b46819410ad4fedf34077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221a44777262353f52efc1ba0ea23bf6da\u0022\u003ESTUART SMITH (Senior Whip\u2014National) (14:23)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223218d0a124030b1b169def2616220402\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I think we\u2019re very close, but I think the Greens may have a further contribution.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022 data-id=\u0022abd6f602e34f439fb6089bdca80a4eba\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022abd6f602e34f439fb6089bdca80a4eba\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green) (14:23)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Just another\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fcdc15f84232a0fc04ff20384bc27057\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: No? Yes?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fde1d61c24462c1dc68cdc41094be677\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, I just fell down. I have another couple of contributions on clause 102. One of the things that came up during the submissions process was that, when it came to developing regional emergency management planning standards, there\u2019s actually, maybe ironically, no requirement for the Minister to consult the emergency management committees, or to consult the emergency management coordination groups that this legislation establishes, during the development of the regional emergency management planning standards. One of the submitters made that point, so we thought it was a good idea to actually require consultation within the legislation, because, obviously, these people who are in the emergency management committees and the emergency management coordination groups will be at the coalface of what\u2019s going on. Obviously, it would be really good for them to be required to be consulted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI appreciate that the current legislation as drafted enables them to be consulted if the Minister wishes, and most Ministers, or all Ministers, will probably choose to consult people with grassroots expertise, but it would be really good to have that be as a legislative requirement rather than potentially leaving it to the whims of the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022e9bb95087722f73f8ea8f665d34567c0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e9bb95087722f73f8ea8f665d34567c0\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (14:25)\u003C/span\u003E: I thought the member was practising his drop, cover, and hold for a minute! Coming back to the member Francisco Hernandez\u2019s question around climate change response, when the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill is passed, it will refer to the Emergency Management Act, not the Civil Defence Management Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cf22a832d14a4c99ab5dfd16e24446e5\u0022 data-id=\u002258bd48740afc9cedb3e13c4750c548e4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf22a832d14a4c99ab5dfd16e24446e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002258bd48740afc9cedb3e13c4750c548e4\u0022\u003ERIMA NAKHLE (National\u2014Takanini) (14:25)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002292c3f65f869579160f61ef4bfbaafc56\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 3 set out on Amendment Paper 750 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAmendments to the amendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b9c45f2bcb775df6649bf07b06a8c356\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Mike Davidson\u2019s tabled amendment inserting clause 77(2)(c) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 43\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ae19ead52d6f990b058d9fed6ea6b5d9\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Celia Wade-Brown\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 79(2)(b) inserting new subparagraph (ia) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 43\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fdd0a5aa46211246dbd3e462637d5a93\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 79(2) inserting new paragraph (bb) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 43\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223e7e58eaa8780752b49787c9938e7bab\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Steve Abel\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 79 inserting new subclause (2A) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 43\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b9fe29548092dafa596f550bfb5facca\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Scott Willis\u2019 tabled amendment to clause 80(2) inserting new paragraphs (ba) and (bb) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 43\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022343a3e3decb8a42c137e3c7cc019b468\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Celia Wade-Brown\u2019s tabled amendment replacing clause 80(2)(c) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 43\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002238f60db5ad3371bee60f413ef5b645a2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Tamatha Paul\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 86(2) inserting new paragraph (ab) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 43\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226d7a3d09ae8b9e2f29f6df185fd629a5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Cushla Tangaere-Manuel\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 86(2)(b) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 43\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221b645062cb438b94f2ea5ed7ec75a310\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Kahurangi Carter\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 86(2) inserting new paragraph (d) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 43\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d6158d2ba52d2d596e8d83a5fa548cdc\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Francisco Hernandez\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 90(3) inserting new paragraph (d) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 43\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220dc2669fba7d6d7cf28276975b49540a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Chl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 91(1) inserting new paragraphs (ba) and (bb) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 43\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a116556d9c48d899aea3484f5cc90b99\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Scott Willis\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 91(1) inserting new paragraph (o) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 43\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fb8b1ca41beb78b11d5a3069c0a748bc\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Celia Wade-Brown\u2019s tabled amendment inserting clause 101(2)(aa) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 43\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Part 3 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 108\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETe P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 3 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002220b09b1c0a8c6d71ba28e0051d08aa63\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u00221cfd78def3159168530b7692b474285a\u0022\u003EPart 4 Emergency response and recovery: states of emergency and transition periods, and Schedule 4\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225f388f2111c3d5351992c3f6ee62511c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to Part 4. This is the debate on clauses 108 to 169, \u201CEmergency response and recovery: states of emergency and transition periods\u201D, and Schedule 4. The question is that Part 4 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022 data-id=\u0022c263d5fb6e24d4a6fe09947ab5a23b37\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c263d5fb6e24d4a6fe09947ab5a23b37\u0022\u003ELEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour\u2014M\u0101ngere) (14:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I really appreciate the opportunity to ask further questions. I would refer to clause 129. I do have an amendment for the Minister to consider, and, Minister, the amendment speaks about clause 129(1)(a) and (c). With regards to the legislation, it is about preventing and preserving human life and injury to people, and also to facilitate\u2014carrying out urgent measures when people are suffering in distress due to an emergency event.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to pinpoint on the animal welfare part and want to recognise and acknowledge everyone who worked tirelessly in the Auckland anniversary floods of 2023. One of the things we set up in South Auckland, in M\u0101ngere, was that the emergency services in the community acted immediately. And so that was really fortunate and it was also appreciated. However, animal welfare was forgotten\u2014not forgotten, but they were in position number two, because of the loss of a number of things, and it was chaos. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMinister, what I wanted to ask is in the provision\u2014it says here \u201Cmitigate unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress of an animal.\u201D In clause 129(4)(a)(i)\u2014I have an Amendment Paper\u2014it talks about the word \u201Cdestroy\u201D. I\u2019ve been researching the word \u201Cdestroy\u201D, and one of the things that I saw, as part of the team that responded and were working together with services but also residents, was the angst and the heartache of many residents, elderly, families that had to make decisions, some very unwillingly, in terms of animals that they could not rescue. On site, in M\u0101ngere, there were a few changes. We had to work with the mayor, but the ground response was that people had forgotten how close family and members of our community were to their animals\u2014not just dogs, not just cats, but a range. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe amendment that I have on the Table for consideration, Minister, is to act humanely. The word \u201Chumanely\u201D is really important. What we saw on the ground at that time was there was a chaotic scenario, not just over a day, over a number of weeks, and the suffering of animals was complex and it was complicated. The insertion of the word \u201Chumanely\u201D is\u2014we had professionals that had to make very fast decisions at the time. You had members of the community who were very distressed and, actually, not for their own lives, for the lives of their animals. And so it was really, really difficult. There was a lot of professional advice, but there were gaps in the system at that time. So there\u2019s been a lot of learnings, Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe point of why I\u2019m raising this is because at times of distress and at times of chaos in emergency situations, there can be different thinking, in terms of \u201Cgot to act now; we\u2019ve got to act appropriately\u201D. The provision is in clause 129(4)(a)(i); it\u2019s to request that the word \u201Chumanely\u201D comes before the word \u201Cdestroy\u201D. One of the things when you\u2019re witnessing at ground level, what happens in those circumstances, the legislation is very clear\u2014that\u2019s very helpful\u2014but when you\u2019re making decisions not just about humans but also about the wellbeing of animals, it\u2019s actually really important that the decisions that are made at that time are humane. I\u2019m just asking for consideration of the Amendment Paper that was lodged today at 9.35 a.m., for the Minister to comment, please. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u00226812cb07e596fdedfa3747f5f3a26286\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226812cb07e596fdedfa3747f5f3a26286\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (14:43)\u003C/span\u003E: I just, again, want to acknowledge the member. I lived through that with her, in my own electorate, with the Auckland flooding, and mentioned the community in M\u0101ngere, particularly where I visited when I became Minister and who had responded with community pop-ups and providing a lot of support into the community.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWith animals and livestock, there has been a gap there\u2014without a doubt. That\u2019s why we\u2019ve closed the gap in this legislation to make sure the powers are there to be able to get in there, look after family pets, and also make sure the welfare of livestock is cared for as well. In terms of the term \u201Chumanely\u201D, when it comes to, sadly, an animal that has to be destroyed, I would say that the assumption is always that that is done humanely, and I would expect that it was probably captured in other legislation. But I\u2019m just going to ask the officials to clarify that for me and I\u2019ll come back to you on it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022 data-id=\u0022f047e93d5570db8471f8375c303fc68e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f047e93d5570db8471f8375c303fc68e\u0022\u003EDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (14:44)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Minister. I just want to jump ahead to clause 163, \u201CPower to close roads and public places\u201D. Just noting that colleagues might have contributions before this\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002258ee9cd6bc5b7590c8775428a80ea17f\u0022\u003EHon Mark Mitchell\u003C/span\u003E: Which one, sorry?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f2cdae1ae89766e4e32bdcbc6ab4d610\u0022\u003EDAN ROSEWARNE\u003C/span\u003E: Clause 163. What interests me here is the move from response to recovery. The emergency may be over, but the recovery phase can involve competing pressures. You know, communities want roads reopened, businesses want customers back\u2014the Minister used the Kaik\u014Dura quake example earlier, and that\u2019s actually quite a good one for this scenario\u2014infrastructure providers want access for repairs, residents want to return home. At the same time, recovery managers may have legitimate safety concerns about damaged roads, unstable land, and contaminated sites and things like that. What I find interesting is that the same power to close roads exists during the emergency phase under clause 30, but here, it continues into the recovery under clause 163, and that raises a concern about the decision-making thresholds.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI suppose, at what point does an emergency management decision become a transport or infrastructure or local government decision instead? So I suppose with my question here, if we have a real-life example, after a major landslip has cleared, who, ultimately, decides when a road is safe to reopen? Is it the recovery manager, the road controlling authority, a geotechnical engineer, or a combination of all three? I suppose the point with that question, Minister, is this: we want to make sure that the bill works when agencies might disagree because we want to be able to provide that certainty for communities. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u00224058e891d8ff488353ce1c3efb827aa4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224058e891d8ff488353ce1c3efb827aa4\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (14:46)\u003C/span\u003E: I said that I\u2019d come back to the member to clarify around the word \u201Chumanely\u201D. The power to destroy an animal, in this clause, clause 129, may only be used to mitigate the animal\u2019s suffering if the animal is actually suffering. This provides a safeguard to ensure that an animal is destroyed humanely. Also, the new requirement to plan for animals means emergency management committees are better prepared to support animal welfare during an emergency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022 data-id=\u002243ecdc9b829a311326497124bf30e2a2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002243ecdc9b829a311326497124bf30e2a2\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green) (14:46)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just seeking to take a quick call on clause 113 and the idea of having potential emergency declarations that are smaller than ward level. This is an idea that has been put forward by a number of submitters, including the Gisborne District Council and the Auckland City Council. Because of course it would be really useful to actually have emergency declarations that are smaller than wards because, at the moment, it seems like when you have to declare an emergency, it applies across the whole district when, of course, some of these districts are actually quite far apart. This was also a point that New Zealand First made in their different view, that we do agree with, around the need to have emergency declarations that are able to just be on a sub-ward level. We\u2019ve drafted an amendment paper in my name, clause 113\u2014under the tranche that the 36 tabled amendments that we lodged at 9.45 p.m., Thursday, 27 August 2026.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223cdf945ffda3395b56975f274fe3ac8a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Can I just ask the member what clause you are referring to?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228fb39d4644504c22862c9f5e7a650dc7\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ\u003C/span\u003E: Clause 113\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227d931d8b98c7a3e89662e1867ebd791e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: One-one-three?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002261e70165a11055d1c0691fd45ac8dce1\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ\u003C/span\u003E: One-one-three. The draught that we have authorises a sub-ward declarations of states of emergency. I\u2019ll end my call there, now. I know my colleague Mike Davidson has a couple of questions that he wants to raise around clauses 120 and 133.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229cc3357da7ff143793448335e5abe965\u0022\u003EHon Mark Mitchell\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker\u2014sorry, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002205d86407cb0b5bbab2807cfb2a89ad5b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Mark who? Mitchell?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022e36b66a93657824bd314fc6fad391dbe\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e36b66a93657824bd314fc6fad391dbe\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (14:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, that\u2019s a really good point. That\u2019s a valid point\u2014and I\u2019ll get to the actual technical piece in a minute\u2014but I\u2019ll just talk, generally, to the issue that you\u2019ve raised. I want to acknowledge the outstanding scientists that we have inside our MetService and the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research that do an enormous amount of hard work to try and keep us as best informed as we can be as a country, in terms of the weather events that we\u2019ve got to plan for or be aware of. But it is not a perfect science. And a great example of that is just overnight, we weren\u2019t anticipating as much rain falling in Queenstown as what actually occurred. The mayor there and the team there have been very good in responding to that. So what you do is when you start trying to anticipate and calling the state of emergency with a ward is that you risk not actually covering the entire area that may be hit by that weather event.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI am aware that the territorial authorities, they do have the wards; however, I\u2019ve seen firsthand how ambiguity can cause damaging delays in decision making during emergencies. It\u2019s important that we stick with unambiguous boundaries that already exist within our local authorities and districts for the reasons that I\u2019ve just outlined.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022 data-id=\u00228e6f460d55603db0aa835e6370af0208\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228e6f460d55603db0aa835e6370af0208\u0022\u003ECUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour\u2014Ikaroa-R\u0101whiti) (14:49)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I will continue as I have started, beginning at clause 109, looking at the declaration of emergencies. I want to acknowledge the attitudinal shift in New Zealanders when it comes to these; also acknowledge, however, that there has been some confusion. States of emergencies have made headlines recently. So the question is: how does the bill ensure there is no confusion about who is in charge during the first critical hours?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMoving now to clause 122, what checks are there on the Minister\u2019s emergency powers?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 128\u2014again, reflecting on the attitudinal shifts and how our communities and wh\u0101nau are responding very well when warnings are issued and states of emergency declared. How will evacuations provide for our elderly\u2014our pakeke, kaum\u0101tua\u2014and our disabled people? Are there any special considerations or processes when considering how they are to be evacuated safely?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMoving to clause 132, when we\u2019re looking at requisition of property, will businesses or marae be compensated if their property is requisitioned, and, if so, what is the process and time frame for that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow looking at recovery and transition periods at clause 142, how will affected communities have a real say in recovery decisions? What formal role, if any, will iwi, hap\u016B, and marae have during long-term recovery, and are there allowances in the bill to stop recovery becoming Wellington-led rather than community-led?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow looking at reviews after emergencies, around clause 168, will post-emergency reports identify what went wrong, not just what agencies did, and therefore the learnings from that? Will they specifically assess how M\u0101ori, rural, and isolated communities were served? And why isn\u2019t an independent review mandatory after every national emergency? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225636a974a1862af2c66a14e062f27f1f\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003EMadam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u002224042d1bb205519e453368230ad3cabf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002224042d1bb205519e453368230ad3cabf\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (14:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I\u2019ll get to you. I just wanted to come back to the member Dan Rosewarne. I think that the issues that you raised are really good ones, but, fundamentally, the way that the system is operating now is that the New Zealand Transport Agency\u2014you know, all the Government agencies are actually working really well with the emergency operations centres, with the controllers, the mayors. There\u2019s a very joined-up approach now between central government, regional government, and local government in terms of how we\u2019re actually responding to these events, both in the prepositioning and the preparatory-type work through the actual response and into the recovery. So you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned, \u201CIs it a joined-up approach, is everyone in the room, and is everyone having a say on decisions around, for example, the opening of roads and infrastructure?\u201D That\u2019s exactly what is happening. But if I refer the member to clause 158, this creates a higher bar to close roads or public places during the transition period compared to a state of emergency. So the bar is higher, rather than being in a state of emergency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022 data-id=\u00220f4989ab10635406822b7cfa40ddd92d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220f4989ab10635406822b7cfa40ddd92d\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (14:53)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have two quick questions to make on this part of the bill, and I appreciate the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery has actually answered a lot of questions on the disability sector and their involvement. I do have a question\u2014and there\u2019s an amendment to this with the timestamp 27 August 8.00.12. It\u2019s to do with clause 121, and it\u2019s to insert, after 121(d), \u201Cto meet the standards of accessibility and be available in New Zealand Sign Language.\u201D It\u2019s a simple clause, and the reason for that clause is just to give effect to New Zealand\u2019s obligations under the disability convention by requiring publications to be accessible in New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other amendment I want to talk to is a different matter, and it\u2019s for clause 133(2). It\u2019s actually excellent that we\u2019ve put in this bill the provision to, obviously, humanely destroy animals that are in distress. In 133, there\u2019s just a slight addition that we want to put in there after clause 133(2), and that is: \u201Cdespite (2), destroying 1(b) should only happen as a last resort.\u201D I guess we know, like for a lot of people, animals\u2014their pets\u2014are like children; they\u2019re so close. While we understand there are circumstances where animals will need to be destroyed in emergencies, I think ensuring that that is actually always going to be the last resort is actually quite important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo that\u2019s just a couple of amendments that we\u2019d like to be considered. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u002278b17353c4ee09edcc1c1dc787f085c6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002278b17353c4ee09edcc1c1dc787f085c6\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (14:55)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much. Just coming back to the member Cushla Tangaere-Manuel\u2019s questions around who is in charge. Ultimately, a state of emergency will be called by the respective mayor, of course working with his civil defence and emergency management group, advisers, first responders. They all have a role to play in assisting a mayor in declaring a state of emergency. The only real anomaly in that is immediately after a local government election where that responsibility then falls on me, and we\u2019ve dealt with that in the bill as well. But the bill puts more emphasis on individual councils\u2019 responsibilities in their own districts, and there is a clear chain of command through the different levels of controllers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EComing to the point of how the bill will ensure recovery is locally led, specifically including the role of iwi, hap\u016B, and marae, I fully agree that we need stronger recovery planning and that this should be locally led, bearing in mind, of course, our whole emergency management system is predicated around the fact that it should be locally led and centrally supported, unless, of course, we\u2019re in a situation where we\u2019re transitioning into a major event across multiple districts or a national state of emergency. I draw the member\u2019s attention to the definition of recovery activities in clause 8, which includes measures to enable community participation. This includes participation by iwi and M\u0101ori.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe last one was: how will evacuation consider the elderly? Regional plans must set out the arrangements for meeting the needs of disproportionately affected communities, which includes the elderly and other members of the community.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022 data-id=\u002293e451bf611eff1f6f924f2bcde04e47\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002293e451bf611eff1f6f924f2bcde04e47\u0022\u003EDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (14:57)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, thanks for your engagement, Minister Mitchell. I just have a question around clause 167\u2014so that\u2019s \u201CPerson exercising emergency powers to provide proof of identity\u201D. I suppose the difficulty is that by the time we get to Part 4 of the bill, we potentially have a fairly long chain of authority. You know, powers can be exercised by controllers, you\u2019ve got recovery managers, you\u2019ve got people authorised by controllers, and there are others there too. I\u2019ve been in enough emergency operations centres (EOCs) to know that confusion often occurs at the edges of the system. You know, people arrive from different organisations, their roles change quickly, they change vests within the EOC, and authority can be delegated at relatively short notice. There were times in my previous life: you\u2019d send a convoy through a river to distribute water or fuel and things like that, and there\u2019ll be somebody there saying that you can\u2019t pass through.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI suppose my question here is that clause 167 requires proof of identity, but where does the bill require proof of authority, particularly where powers have been delegated or exercised by a person authorised by the controller or the recovery manager, or even a constable, for that matter. And, I suppose, how are the members within the EOC, those agencies, expected to distinguish between someone who merely has, you know, some ID or someone who\u2019s acting on written authority by, like, a controller, for example? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022000bab09371f5d69cfa50bb7ecb04fb9\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 4 set out on Amendment Paper 750 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022258367e4a571d2898124ee2e6541c792\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Francisco Hernandez\u2019s tabled amendment inserting new clause 113A be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 43\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ce39a88eafa6f854a8b097f5f25d0ecb\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Kahurangi Carter\u2019s tabled amendment inserting clause 120(1)(d) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 43\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228979e1c8fe1b00e085e5221015b5d157\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Lemauga Lydia Sosene\u2019s tabled amendments to clauses 129 and 162 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 43\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228993d478cae469aa169fb5889220c605\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Steve Abel\u2019s tabled amendment inserting clause 133(3) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 43\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 4 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022879967ef7eeef77f7978f6b5277b3b2e\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u00227768740228370547ca8f9fb08e6ed085\u0022\u003EPart 5 Information, enforcement, compensation, appeals, and secondary legislation\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222de5266d92c8d3488554457130d5b3f1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to Part 5. This is the debate on clauses 170 to 216, \u201CInformation, enforcement, compensation, appeals, and secondary legislation\u201D. The question is that Part 5 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022 data-id=\u0022b48fe5f25d06c9ea6abc5288310bb7e3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b48fe5f25d06c9ea6abc5288310bb7e3\u0022\u003ECUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour\u2014Ikaroa-R\u0101whiti) (15:03)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Once again, I will ask these questions as a group. As I said in my opening statement, we do support this bill and we do not intend to drag it out. However, can I ask of the Chair that the Minister is given time to answer all the questions that are asked in that part, because I\u2019m very conscious that my colleague Dan Rosewarne has had some questions which have gone unanswered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f7738280f041feb179d626eb6f91afa0\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: What I will do is when the Minister gets the responses, I will get him to read them out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b9531a34e779f3a3bda9ba202aae1cde\u0022\u003ECUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ERight, to clause 170. When we\u2019re looking at data, I want to ask: what stops information collected during an emergency being used for other Government purposes? Can we get some assurance around that? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe know that data sovereignty is very important to wh\u0101nau. People are cautious about how they share their information and where that might end up. Looking at clause 173, on that note, we know that a lot of our iwi and hap\u016B organisations are well trusted in their communities. They move through and they often have access to data that Government agencies may not have because of the relationships they have directly with families and individuals, and so if there is access to it by Government agencies, how will sensitive information held by iwi and marae, and hap\u016B and iwi organisations be protected? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMoving on in Part 5 to compensation, clause 191(2) says, \u201COn the application of any person with an interest in the requisitioned property, reasonable compensation is payable to that person for either or both of the following, if applicable: \u2026 if the requisitioned property has been used while under emergency management control, [or if it] has suffered any loss or damage while under emergency management control,\u201D. I\u2019ve summarised that. How quickly must compensation be paid? Would the Minister support having a simpler, independent compensation process? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do want to ask a question\u2014my last question\u2014and I don\u2019t have the reference here, but I\u2019m confident that the Minister will know what I\u2019m referring to in regard to compensation. I\u2019ve had some direct feedback from some community-based civil defence groups about the struggle that they have had in the timeliness of compensation for the out-of-pocket expenses they have made in standing up responses. Is there any inclination by the Minister to simplify that process, to speed it up, and also to lessen the scrutiny some of those community-based civil defence committees have to go through when spending those out-of-pocket expenses themselves? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022474af52882bd1e46c381427b1528fd32\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022474af52882bd1e46c381427b1528fd32\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (15:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, although I appreciate the member Cushla Tangaere-Manuel is giving us the list of questions, what it\u2019s meaning is that with the other questions we\u2019re sort of playing catch-up, and so I apologise to the member Dan Rosewarne. We will get that answer to you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to the information question\u2014and I will wait for some information from the officials around the information question. It\u2019s a really good one, but what I can see here is a subheading within clause 173 that says, \u201CInformation must be disclosed or used only for the purpose of this Act\u201D, and then it goes on to say that \u201C(3) The person may disclose or use that information only for the purposes of this Act. (4) However,\u2014(a) the person may disclose to a responsible person information that\u2014(i) is relevant to the exercise of powers under subpart 6B of Part 2 of the Building Act 2004 in an area for which a state of emergency or transition period has been declared; and (ii) is to be used in connection with the exercise of those powers in that area; and (b) the person must not use information that an essential infrastructure provider provides when performing an obligation under section 74 to enforce obligations under this Act, other than the obligations in section 74 itself.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI know this relates to infrastructure, but I\u2019ll bring the member back to the fact that information must be disclosed and used only for the purposes of this Act. I think that is a really good point, and I will seek further clarification on that from the officials. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to compensation, yeah, I totally and fully acknowledge that it could be iwi, hap\u016B, and marae that respond. Basically, they empty their cupboards, they provide all the support, and we\u2019ve got to be able to replenish them. At times that hasn\u2019t been done quickly enough, without a doubt, and that is why\u2014under the direction of the Prime Minister, actually\u2014we\u2019ve made changes to try and cut the red tape and compliance issues around that, based on good faith by both parties, to be able to get money out much quicker to marae for them to be able to replenish and be in a much stronger and better position to be able to support their communities when the next weather event comes through. As members know, there has also been an enormous amount of work, and I\u2019d like to acknowledge my good friend the Hon Tama Potaka, who, along with myself\u2014especially up on the East Coast\u2014has done a lot of work with marae on relocation and making sure that they are supported. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOn the other points, I\u2019ll come back to the member, but I just wanted to start with those two points, and I know for a fact that we\u2019ve already been doing a lot of work to address them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022352891fe3ef678d8a6b1bdc20b500a0a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 5 set out on Amendment Paper 750 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002202de0782df66a216a11272393b26b3a1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendment replacing clause 180(3)(a) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f912af6ffea3d0ae95a50f644bd8e7ca\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Steve Abel\u2019s tabled amendment replacing clause 182(2)(a) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002202308340d16ef181994b51e6cb9f6ca7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Kahurangi Carter\u2019s tabled amendment replacing clause 183(4) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Tamatha Paul\u2019s tabled amendment replacing clause 184(2)(a) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226eb046163afb1e76fa7313b952c49456\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Mike Davidson\u2019s tabled amendment replacing clause 186(2)(a) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b499b63757dc878c81bb002b35e4d50a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendment replacing clause 189(2)(a) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cd75884272f386c12b34796ff950c8d7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 196A replacing the definition of \u201Cpersonal property\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 43\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aa4d93c6bc730c8c087a30e1cd338ceb\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter\u2019s tabled amendment replacing clause 210(2)(a) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bd6ef106111fc585206f72d09bb08448\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Chl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 210(2) inserting new paragraph (c) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 5 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223b1ecb26915faabb17d78d384a99896f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, before we go to Part 6, the Minister was going to respond to a couple of questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022a096e6fc6461ea2ff842d5baeb604d3d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a096e6fc6461ea2ff842d5baeb604d3d\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (15:13)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to clarify for the member Dan Rosewarne: you were asking about being able to provide proof when powers are conferred on someone. You used the example of, you know, you\u2019re out on the ground, you\u2019ve got a truck loaded with goods, you\u2019re crossing a swollen river and someone\u2019s stopping and saying, \u201CAre you allowed to get through here?\u201D Well, it\u2019s not related to that. You\u2019d hope that common sense and good communication is on the ground, and that\u2019s what we\u2019re trying to improve through the bill so that we\u2019d actually be able to deal with that. It\u2019s more about when specific powers are conferred on someone and they have then got the powers to be making decisions that impact on others. That is what that refers to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002212c2beb320bd13f626abf991ed1570ba\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u002213fb611023cdb3b0f1364be6e0f86aac\u0022\u003EPart 6 Amendments to other legislation and repeal, and Schedule 5\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227bc871b87cb787ae75555b566ba87d50\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to Part 6. This is the debate on clauses 217 to 224, \u201CAmendments to other legislation and repeal\u201D, and Schedule\u00A05. The question is that Part 6 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMike Davidson\u2019s tabled amendment inserting new clause 221A is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u2019s tabled amendment inserting new clause 222A to insert new section 101A into the Social Security Act 2018 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 6 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 1 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 108\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETe P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 2 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 108\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETe P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 3 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 108\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETe P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 3 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022edb9a62b970953aeab5502431b6ec57c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s tabled amendment replacing clause 7(3) of Schedule 4 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 108\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETe P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c52c9a8fe62e2200d684cdd04f8a2865\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke\u2019s amendments to Schedule 4 set out on Amendment Paper 734 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 43\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 4 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 108\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETe P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 4 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222be735b6e3653c09b0f18cf2426cc692\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Schedule 5. The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Schedule 5 set out on Amendment Paper 750 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 5 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 108\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETe P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 5 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00220cf1f05390bbfb06cd641a9f2d69f5f1\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u00228498cb87c67f6b212d5dc8d4a48ceaf6\u0022\u003EClauses 1 and 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d8997bbf88d16847d66bee6caa8825a7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to our final debate. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2, \u201CTitle\u201D and \u201CCommencement\u201D. The question is that clause\u00A01 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat clause 1 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 108\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETe P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221ce9a1343f060f1ab026337a64edc014\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendment to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 750 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill to be reported with amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHouse resumed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00221fd151addfacb54210f51b5fc07454eb\u0022\u003EPlanning Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00221fd151addfacb54210f51b5fc07454eb\u0022\u003ENatural Environment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00221fd151addfacb54210f51b5fc07454eb\u0022\u003EEmergency Management Bill (No 2)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ab0bfe41ff67926d8d1120e830774021\u0022\u003EReport of Committee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022011da7f5473823cd296bed725806e464\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Planning Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Natural Environment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Emergency Management Bill (No 2) and reports it with amendment. I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the report be adopted\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022NormalIndent\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022NormalIndent\u0022\u003EReport adopted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cc72fdc9b6b3496a82016c6bdadde5b9\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill are set down for third reading next sitting day. The Emergency Management Bill (No 2) is set down for third reading immediately.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00228d89aca664d955b3e34e34640a6fa470\u0022\u003EEmergency Management Bill (No 2)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00223e548ab1e5ae2cba4c0a261668287951\u0022\u003EThird Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022d5124fe10775a874f67edd69700244f8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d5124fe10775a874f67edd69700244f8\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (15:25)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Emergency Management Bill (No 2) be now read a third time\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019d like to thank my colleagues across the House for the constructive debate during committee of the whole House, ensuring that the emergency management system is fit for purpose. This should be apolitical, and I appreciate your willingness to take a cross-party approach to this critical piece of work. There\u2019s always a danger of mentioning names, but I do want to mention some names for people across the House that have put a lot of effort into this bill, as I say, not just here in Parliament, but I often see those same people out on the ground when their own areas have been hit by a state of emergency. In no specific order: Cushla Tangaere-Manuel; Camilla Belich, whom Cushla took over from; Kieran McAnulty; Francisco Hernandez; Nicole McKee; Karen Chhour; Mark Patterson; Andrew Hoggard; Andy\u2014I don\u2019t know if he\u2019s not in the House. Of course, I want to acknowledge Tim Costley, the chair of the committee, and the committee members; Melissa Lee; and, of course, my dear friend who is departing, the Hon Shane Reti. Can I thank all of you for the heavy lifting that you\u2019ve done in the committee stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOf course, can I acknowledge the officials, Beth and Jeremy in particular, who have been in the House with us today. I mentioned this to the Hon Kieran McAnulty and recognised the fact that a lot of the work in this emergency management bill had been done by him and the previous Government, but, actually, there was still an enormous amount of heavy lifting to do to make sure that we\u2019ve got a bill that provides us with the best possible platform to operate from in terms of keeping our country safe and, of course, taking into account a lot of the information that came through from the report from Sir Jerry Mateparae after the tragedy that we all faced and went through with Cyclone Gabrielle. I really want to make a special mention of the National Emergency Management Agency and the officials led by Beth and Jeremy, who have done an enormous amount of work. They\u2019ve worked week in, week out, burning the midnight candle, with thorough consultation, going through every stakeholder, to make sure that we\u2019ve got a bill in this House now that sets us up for the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill is fantastic. It provides us with a platform, but, ultimately, it all comes down to the people. I want to acknowledge all of the people that are involved around the country in emergency management, whatever your role may be. Some of you work behind the wire and are never seen and never visible to the public, but the job that you do removes a lot of anxiety and stress for people when they\u2019re dealing with whatever emergency we might have to face as a country, right through to our first responders, who quite simply are world class, all of them, out there protecting and looking after our people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to highlight the key amendment we debated, because it gets to the heart of a difficult balance I\u2019ve observed in my role as Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery. The reality is that most emergencies are local and managed locally. This is why the bill takes a locally led approach, like the current Act. Local government is responsible for identifying, assessing, and managing the hazards and risks in their areas. This is because councils are better placed than central government to know which communities are most at risk from local hazards. The local governments also hold one of the tools to manage these hazards and risks, both under this bill and other legislation. But I have heard real concern that councils have sometimes been too slow to take precautionary action, especially when it comes to mitigating flood risk in the days leading up to severe weather events. That\u2019s why we\u2019re giving emergency management committees the power to carry out works when there is the imminent threat of an emergency. This change will avoid any doubt that precautionary works are a key part of emergency management.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill has also been amended to enable the Director-General of Emergency Management to step in during local emergencies, but only if it is necessary to preserve human life, prevent injury to people, or prevent serious damage to property. National intervention will be a last resort, but at a time when New Zealand faces increasing risk from severe weather and other emergencies, it\u2019s right that central government should have the power to direct emergency management activities if local government hasn\u2019t acted and lives or property are at risk.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill is a key part of the puzzle when it comes to delivering the system change recommended by inquiries and reviews, but operational improvements are equally important. The Government has committed to modernising the operational technology systems for the emergency management sector through investing in the Emergency Management Sector Operational Systems programme. This will deliver four key technology systems for the emergency management sector: a data platform that consolidates key national, regional, and local data sets; a data and visualisation tool, otherwise known as a common operating picture; operational tools for emergency management personnel to task, collaborate, and manage resources during response and recovery; and an upgrade to the national warning system for timely, accessible alerts to the public.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ERight now, the operational systems used across the sector are fragmented and cannot support a joined-up response at the scale required to manage incidents of regional and national significance. By investing in modern technology, we will deliver improved real-time situational awareness to enable evidence-based decision making and interoperability across the emergency management sector during response and recovery. Live information and better coordination mean the right calls being made at the right time to protect infrastructure and minimise damage. Diverse communities, including M\u0101ori, Pacific peoples, ethnic communities, disabled persons, and rural populations will be better supported through accessible and multilingual communication tools.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis technology investment is an anchor project within the Strengthening Emergency Management road map, which implements the Government\u2019s response to the inquiry into the North Island severe weather events. Work on other initiatives in the road map is already under way, including the new national emergency management facility, reviewing the national emergency management plan, and work to personalise the workforce. Modernising the legislative framework, investment in modern technology and facilities, and building system capacity and capability will address longstanding challenges and ensure New Zealand is better prepared to manage more frequent and complex emergencies now and into the future. Together with those operational improvements, the bill delivers the system change New Zealand needs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMr Speaker, before I commend the bill, I want to finish where I sort of started and acknowledge you. Often, it\u2019s forgotten, the work that you did in the role that I hold now. We\u2019re custodians of the role and we do the best that we can, but I want to say that I took example from having watched the response to the Canterbury earthquakes. If we visit Canterbury now, and Christchurch now\u2014and, no, I\u2019m not going to bring up the Ranfurly Shield\u2014you can see a region that is growing and thriving, and that took time, and they deserve it. But I want to acknowledge your role in that. I\u2019m proud to commend the Emergency Management Bill (No 2) to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f1843c17476c9ca1bae2d2dcfc570a09\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022 data-id=\u0022b17fbc40648303924264b0c0d8f0e947\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b17fbc40648303924264b0c0d8f0e947\u0022\u003ECUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour\u2014Ikaroa-R\u0101whiti) (15:33)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. That\u2019s a hard act to follow from the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery, Mr Speaker, but I will say that when my mother used to watch you on TV, she used to say, \u201CI like that Brownlee guy.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224c13bbe666f8ec03aeb8bc3cc883184d\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: OK, that\u2019s enough. You really can\u2019t do better than that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002257833a930e67d58b809afd7aa31f0ea9\u0022\u003ECUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I said in the opening of our committee stage, Labour do support this bill, and I too want to acknowledge, once again, the Minister for the bipartisan way in which you have held the portfolio, encouraging good relations not just with the Labour Party but with all MPs across the House. I want to reinforce my acknowledgments also to your officials and your comms teams, who are always keeping us abreast of everything across Aotearoa as they unfold. I too want to acknowledge the Hon Kieran McAnulty and, of course, the mahi that Camilla Belich has done on our behalf on this important work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy position as the Labour spokesperson for emergency management seems to have evolved from the fact that I\u2019ve spent most of my term up to my knees in silt or mud or surrounded by landslides. Though that may be the case, it truly has been an honour to hold this portfolio, not only because we see the best will of each other across this House\u2014we unite over the safety of our people\u2014but also because you see the best of our communities and the capabilities that shine in all our individuals, our groups, our businesses throughout Aotearoa, at a time when people are going through some of the lowest experiences of their lives. It is my pleasure to stand here and endorse this bill on behalf of the Labour Party.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI just want to pick up on some of the key points that the Minister has made about why we\u2019re here. Quite frankly, this is the boring part of very important work that goes on around Aotearoa, and that\u2019s our job: to enable the professionals and the volunteers to carry out the very important work they do keeping our communities safe and navigating our tricky landscapes while doing that. While this might seem boring to the wh\u0101nau at home, we do it to make sure that all our volunteers and our professionals can go about doing the mahi. We have started experiencing frequently, as the Minister shared with us earlier, a weather event every six days, so it\u2019s very important that we allow our people and our communities to be upskilled and to ensure that we have appropriate voices at decision-making tables so that we can execute the important work, as I said, of keeping our communities safe.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221ad1cbcc07336428da27961dc62b75a7\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Hear, hear.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e79c407f13e8a329f9612dd7640f3754\u0022\u003ECUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Kieran. It\u2019s been acknowledged that a lot of the mahi in this bill is not new. We are building on some work that has been done across the House by many kaitiaki of this role throughout. It\u2019s time to let people get on with the business.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to acknowledge a lot of our wh\u0101nau who are still recovering from some of the extreme weather events we\u2019ve had across Ikaroa-R\u0101whiti and Aotearoa. While we commend this bill to the House and people are still recovering, I look forward to ongoing discussions and investment across Parliament into resilience. We\u2019ve talked about infrastructure in this bill and building resilience so that communities throughout the likes of Wairoa can have more investment, ongoing investment, in resilience so that the impacts of the weather events that have become our \u201Cnew normal\u201D are lessened. I\u2019m sure we will learn from everything we\u2019ve been through, and I hope we will continue to commit to that across the House in a bipartisan way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to also pick up on the modernising of systems and say how important that was. One of my first experiences, like yours, Minister, which I suppose qualified me for this role, was being completely cut off during Cyclone Gabrielle. Our roads were cut off, our internet was cut off, our Wi-Fi connectivity was cut off, our phones were cut off\u2014all we had was good old manpower, door knocking, and thank goodness for 585 AM Radio Ngati Porou. I absolutely support the investment in improving our resilience in that respect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn conclusion, I want to acknowledge that, while we have debated at length\u2014and I thank the Minister for his robust responses to all questions posed during committee stage. We did debate at length the role of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the mandated role, per se, of iwi and hap\u016B, because we all have acknowledged broadly across this House the amazing work that iwi and hap\u016B organisations do quickly, effectively, efficiently, and for all. We\u2019ve also acknowledged widely the important role that marae facilities play in responses\u2014not just weather events. No matter what the kaupapa is, our marae are ready and able to respond and cater to our communities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to also acknowledge submitters such as T\u0101tou T\u0101tou; such as Rangit\u0101ne T\u016B Mai R\u0101; such as Mana Ahuriri; such as Te Runanganui o Ng\u0101ti Porou; such as Hineuru Iwi Trust, Hauora Taiwhenua, and T\u016Bwharetoa Settlement Trust, who raised your concerns about Te Tiriti o Waitangi and raised your concerns about the mandate of having iwi and hap\u016B voices at tables. We agree that was in the original bill, and so we agree that in the future this is a conversation we should still have and we must still have. That said, we also agree that this is an important piece of legislation. We want wh\u0101nau, professionals, and volunteers out in our communities to be equipped, to have clear guidelines, and to get on with the business of keeping Aotearoa safe throughout emergencies, whatever they may bring.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat said, I want to also acknowledge a lot of our organisations out there who are supporting recovery without central funding. I\u2019ve been to two events in the last three weeks\u2014one up on the East Coast, one in the Wairarapa\u2014where voluntary organisations have been helping resource the recovery of our farmers, who play a key part in our economy, which is also widely acknowledged in this House. Thank you to all the wh\u0101nau and organisations out there who are helping keep Aotearoa on our feet, helping families keep food on their plates by helping them keep their livelihoods with the amazing support you do off your own backs to keep our wh\u0101nau humming and Aotearoa ticking.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo all our wh\u0101nau, as I\u2019ve said, who are still recovering, \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Ekia kaha koutou\u003C/span\u003E, but please be reassured that, when it comes to emergency management and it comes to Aotearoa recovery, we stand united as a Parliament, and that\u2019s something to be proud of\u2014especially when we\u2019ve had some feisty debates in this House. I\u2019m certainly proud that, when it comes to emergency management and recovery in Aotearoa, we unite as a Parliament and we debate with open minds and open hearts in the best interests of the people that we represent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E[Authorised reo M\u0101ori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022 data-id=\u0022a80f6128d136e3bae4a368f499a37e5a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a80f6128d136e3bae4a368f499a37e5a\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green) (15:41)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to speak on the Emergency Management Bill (No 2) and express the Green Party\u2019s continued support for this legislation. I wanted to begin my speech by thanking the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery for his cross-party support in this work and my colleagues across the House as well for treating this as a serious cross-party issue that will survive changes of Government and changes of personnel across many different Governments and many different iterations of Parliament. It\u2019s really rare to see that increasingly happening, and it\u2019s good to see that we can still agree on some issues and that we can still find common ground on a number of issues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI wanted to also thank local governments and the emergency management sector across Aotearoa New Zealand. I was once an emergency management volunteer with the Otago Regional Council, working with emergency management Otago\u2014or EMO as it was called\u2014and it was really enlightening to see, actually, the work that volunteers do up close. Thirdly, I wanted to thank the volunteers and the communities that are doing this largely for free\u2014doing this largely without much in the way of funding or support. They are the people who are carrying the backbone of our emergency management system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI wanted to acknowledge the changes that have been made in select committee. It was really good to see my colleague Mike Davidson in the Governance and Administration Committee, and other colleagues in that committee, get the changes that the Greens were pushing for, including greater inclusion of iwi M\u0101ori, including clearer references to the disproportionately affected communities, such as our disability community. Even though we do support the bill\u2014and it was good to see some of the changes we put forward during the select committee stage advance\u2014we did want the bill to go further on a number of areas, and I\u2019ll elaborate on those now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI was somewhat reassured to hear the Minister, during the committee of the whole House stage, acknowledge that there could be tighter integration between climate adaptation and the emergency management bill through secondary legislation. It was good to see that. Even though all of our amendments did get voted down, it\u2019s good to see that that is actually an area that a future Government can address and make provisions for through the secondary legislation mechanism. We also wanted some clearer references and clearer, I guess, inclusion of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and iwi M\u0101ori, but obviously those were not voted for in the committee stage. Even though they weren\u2019t voted for, there are still some references that were put in in select committee that do establish a bare minimum that can at least survive across different iterations of Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe third thing that we wanted to see\u2014and we did have amendments on it\u2014was the issue of resourcing. We do know that local government is facing some really tight constraints at the moment, so we put in some amendments to ensure that local government got the resourcing it needed through this bill. The amendments we put forward were to exempt emergency management services from the upcoming rates-capping legislation. The second was to give local government power to impose a civil defence levy or a targeted rate from local government for civil defence purposes. We did try and address the resourcing issue. We also tried to introduce direct mechanisms for direct reimbursement for community individuals rather than passing it through local government. Unfortunately, those amendments didn\u2019t go through.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELast but not least, we did put forward numerous amendments around disability issues and making sure that they were more explicitly referred to in legislation. Most importantly, we also tried to put forward amendments around taking a broader view in this bill on not just protecting human life but also protecting ecosystems and wildlife\u2014because it is really important that we don\u2019t just take an anthropomorphic view of this wonderful planet we live on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m not going to take a full call on this. I just wanted, again, to reiterate our thanks to the Minister and our thanks across the House. I acknowledge that emergency management is an area that will continue to see a lot of changes and improvements as debate goes on\u2014just seeing the terrible things that are happening in Nepal, we see how important it is for communities to be prepared for situations and to be resilient and adapting to things like that. Obviously, there is a limit on how much we can actually adapt to, but the more we do and the more we work together, the more we can actually survive the challenges ahead. With that, I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022443f23de4cbd464f91833e6c466c98c0\u0022 data-id=\u00224d23ccd86ed645e72d15b03a22153f67\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022443f23de4cbd464f91833e6c466c98c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224d23ccd86ed645e72d15b03a22153f67\u0022\u003ETODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (15:47)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, it gives me real pleasure to rise on behalf of ACT and take a short call on the Emergency Management Bill (No 2). I want to thank the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery for his kind acknowledgment of my ACT colleagues. Again, this bill is supported across the House, and as the Minister outlined, it actually builds on work over a number of successive Governments, and it\u2019s had great input, both from members across this House and also those involved in the sector.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIt is providing a new, modern framework. It\u2019s going to ensure that we have the right level of community involvement and, also, that the lines of demarcation for responsibilities, etc., are clear and that actually we have an effective way for dealing with emergency management situations in New Zealand. I\u2019m not going to traverse all the ground that the Minister and other speakers have covered again, but I just say ACT does commend this bill to the House. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002248ce26e54d83406399b875df20400dec\u0022 data-id=\u00222af529cbd152110bec76593e4d10d89a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002248ce26e54d83406399b875df20400dec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222af529cbd152110bec76593e4d10d89a\u0022\u003EANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (15:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Thanks, Mr Speaker. I\u2019m delighted to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take also a brief call in support of this bill. First of all, I just wanted to say that we all recognise that emergencies are a major issue across this country. Whether it\u2019s earthquakes, firestorms, whatever\u2014we treat it seriously here, and I think that is a good thing, and it\u2019s great to see that bipartisan support across the House for this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMinister, in introducing it\u2014and thank you for the work that you do\u2014you mentioned being proactive about some of these things, and two of the things\u2014and you did encourage me to mention these, so I will briefly. Being proactive is not just responding to emergencies, it\u2019s being proactive about emergencies. One of the things local government particularly asked for is to say, \u201CLook, can we link together better emergency management and, particularly, land-use planning?\u201D, and we\u2019ve done that. I was pleased to be able to persuade colleagues that clause 43A should be in there so that, when you\u2019ve got your planning hat on\u2014and you\u2019ve got to think about it with your emergency management hat on as well\u2014that hopefully will stop us building dumb things in dumb places quite as often as we do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other one, which you also mentioned, Minister, was, when there\u2019s an actual event going on, the ability to be able to say, \u201CLook, something\u2019s going to go wrong here; can we get in there early and clean it up before it happens?\u201D I think of the Wairau River bar, I think of Lake Forsyth, and I think of Lake Ellesmere, where flooding has occurred because we got in too late. Dealing with those things and giving people protection against liability in that situation is, I think, a really good step forward, and it was great to be able, again, to persuade the committee about clause 202 to do that, and you strengthened that further. That\u2019s something the contractors in particular asked for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, I just wanted to say that it was also great to get in there the recognition that mayors asked for as well. We had those big storms in October of last year. We were in that period just after the election; they weren\u2019t sworn in yet, but they\u2019d have liked to actually take responsibility of their own communities and declare those emergencies. We\u2019ve given that power there, as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI just want to finish off by saying thanks to all the officials\u2014I know you\u2019ve mentioned Beth and Jeremy, but all the officials there, Minister, and also the submitters, the committee that did a great job, I think, all the people who do all that great work, paid and unpaid. I also just wanted to pay tribute to you, too, for the way in which you engaged with the committee\u2014you engaged with the committee all the time, not just in this bill, but also in Estimates, etc.,\u2014and the great work that you do around the country in responding with skill, empathy, and knowledge to communities when they\u2019re facing stress. With delight, I commend this bill to the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022 data-id=\u0022da937e5c271e8ce7c71297d5255a4802\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022da937e5c271e8ce7c71297d5255a4802\u0022\u003EORIINI KAIPARA (Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori\u2014T\u0101maki Makaurau) (15:50)\u003C/span\u003E: E te P\u012Bka, t\u0113n\u0101 koe. I rise on behalf of Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori, firstly to acknowledge the Minister for all the effort and all the mahi that he\u2019s put in to ensure that we have the right set of policy settings here in this bill that we\u2019ve just debated in the Chamber, and now we speak to the third reading. I also want to give rise to the voice of my colleague Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, who has been actively involved in the redesign, but also in consulting directly with the Minister on behalf of Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori, and the people of Hauraki-Waikato, who have experienced, just this year alone, a series of different emergency call-outs, but also being in a state of emergency. There are the experiences of my colleague, and actually every member of Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori. I\u2019m thinking about our co-leaders, who have also, over the last three years, had to deal with, at face value and on the ground, the realities of climate change\u2014but I\u2019m also thinking of emergency responses with little to no resources. That is Te Tair\u0101whiti, Te Tai Hau\u0101uru, even Te Tai Tonga.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI reflect on a moment when I was still reporting as a journalist the Kaik\u014Dura earthquakes, and being called out to that, being a part of that. I actually went down seven days after the earthquake, and on that seventh day I noticed one thing. There was no one around. The cameras had all left, the reporters had all left, the support had left, but the money was still going through. Who was left on the ground? It was the aunties and uncles, the 1 percent of ahi k\u0101 that remained on the ground connected to the marae, that opened their doors\u2014without waiting for warning or without waiting for anybody to ask. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe know, and it\u2019s been said time and time again in this House, marae are the first responders on the ground when there is a state of emergency. They never close their doors, ever\u2014and that is the key point, and the reason why we could not support the bill today in its current state, because it does not extend far enough. That is the direct consultation and k\u014Drero that has come to Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori from each of our electorates. It is great that there is a bipartisan approach to this. It is amazing that we can, as politicians, as the elected members of Parliament for each of our parties, but also our rohe, where we can come together and actually take it seriously, the solutions and the k\u014Drero that needs to be had to reach a place where we can agree without regret. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EToday, it was really hard to support everything, knowing that our wh\u0101nau are still behind the middle line. We have asked, time and time again: do not lock M\u0101ori out of decision-making processes. I know there are parts in this bill that reflect M\u0101ori will be there. However, the real stories we\u2019re hearing on the ground, Minister, and Mr Speaker, is that it doesn\u2019t actually eventuate. It\u2019s written in black and white, but it\u2019s not actually practised. There are no practices that are prioritising M\u0101ori when it comes to communications, when it comes to not just making decisions, but having a w\u0101nanga\u2014consulting on what\u2019s best for the people in those rohe. For instance, Waip\u0101. The Waip\u0101 River was inundated, it was flooded. For quite an extended period of time, the people on the ground\u2014the aunties, the uncles\u2014had no idea who to talk to. It always led back to marae. The councils weren\u2019t talking. The communications had failed miserably on the ground for an extended period of time. Our reasons for opposing parts of these bills, and the bill in its entirety, is because we believe that M\u0101ori are still behind the eight ball, are not funded or resourced properly, and there\u2019s discussion that M\u0101ori should be reimbursed after the fact when we don\u2019t have money to afford to look after everybody, but we know how to pull out and come together. It is always in a state of emergency where you see kotahitanga, and M\u0101ori do that brilliantly. We want all of Aotearoa to do that brilliantly, but we cannot do that if we\u2019re not all equally considered and valued.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003E[Authorised reo M\u0101ori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe oppose this bill, but we thank the Minister for his mahi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022 data-id=\u0022454c1e8e7d82210251777a2bff4754c5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022454c1e8e7d82210251777a2bff4754c5\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (15:55)\u003C/span\u003E: I rise in support of this bill on behalf of the Green Party. I must say that this is a really good bill. It\u2019s not perfect, but it\u2019s important not to let perfect get in the way of good. I just want to talk to a few points that have been raised along this process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFirstly, I want to talk around the disability sector. This is to the amendment that I did put forward to the committee of the whole House, which was ensuring that, as a right, someone from the disability community sector was a member of the emergency management coordinating group; one of their roles is to oversee the implementation, development, maintenance, monitoring, and evaluation of the regional management plan. While there\u2019s the ability for other people to be co-opted on to the group, it was our belief that, actually, the disability community should have someone there as a right. It reminds me of their tagline: \u201CNothing about us without us\u201D. While we know that people with disabilities are more vulnerable and are at the heart of a lot of this bill, the fact that they don\u2019t sit on some of these coordinating groups\u2014management groups\u2014is actually quite a shame. I think they need to be involved when decisions are being made that affect them, because they have the most expertise in that area. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnother point I wanted to talk about, and was just mentioned before, is around marae. We do know that marae open their doors every time there is a disaster. We saw through the select committee phase in the submissions, the numerous submissions that we saw, around direct reimbursement for marae. It was a shame that I put an amendment through select committee and through committee of the whole House\u2014which was voted down both times\u2014to ensure that it would be in legislation that marae would be reimbursed from the Government, from the Crown. Unfortunately, that did not happen, and it relies on a policy setting. I find that\u2019s a shame, and a risk, and it should have been put into the legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other thing I just want to talk about briefly is around local government, and the role of local government, and, more importantly, the role of risk reduction. I know we focus a lot on being ready and responding, but obviously one of the most important things we can do is look at risk reduction. Earlier this year, the Climate Change Commission pointed out that 97 percent of the Government spend on natural hazards since 2010 is on responding to and recovering from disasters, and only 3 percent has gone into reducing the risk. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe cost is obviously in the billions. If we really want to look to the future, and look to reduce costs, we need to ensure that we do risk reduction. Throughout the bill, it is framed as cost-effective risk reduction, and we know a lot of that work will fall on to local government. At the same time, that local government is going through significant reform, with the potential of rates capping. Capping rates will impact communities into the future when risk reduction is not done properly. I urge, as we move forward, to ensure that local government has the ability to work in partnership with central government to ensure important risk reduction is carried out, so communities into the future don\u2019t have to suffer what other communities have been suffering with improper risk reduction. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019d like to just quickly mention a wee note from one of the submissions, from former Mayor of \u014Ctautahi, the Hon Lianne Dalziel. She said that although it\u2019s accepted that managing the risk from hazards to an acceptable level requires actions across the four Rs\u2014risk reduction, readiness, response, and recovery\u2014the focus constantly remains on readiness and response. This means there\u2019s no clarity around the roles and responsibility when it comes to risk reduction and recovery. While I\u2019ve just touched previously on risk reduction, I think it\u2019s also important to look past recovery, and to ensure the lessons that are learnt don\u2019t just sit on shelves\u2014that they\u2019re implemented across the country, so that when an event happens at the bottom of the South Island, what is learnt from that event helps someone at the top of the North Island. I hope that happens through this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ab32b09663ea48b199aa59e4d88f77e4\u0022 data-id=\u0022d2cd0110fcdc5b9c935593fd6fa6aaff\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ab32b09663ea48b199aa59e4d88f77e4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d2cd0110fcdc5b9c935593fd6fa6aaff\u0022\u003ETIM COSTLEY (National\u2014\u014Ctaki) (16:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, sir. It\u2019s a great bill. I\u2019d like to make just two short points. Firstly, clause 39, on co-ordinating executive groups: much has been made of the mandatory inclusion of iwi M\u0101ori\u2014a good thing\u2014but can I also just acknowledge the mandatory inclusion of our rural communities, who are, actually, really important in these crises, and also ambulance officers. I think many Kiwis would be surprised to know that ambulance officers weren\u2019t included. I\u2019d like to just acknowledge the great work that the Wellington Free Ambulance and St John Ambulance and all our ambulance staff and paramedics do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EFinally, the Minister acknowledged all the staff and officials who have worked on it. Can I just give a shout-out to Mr Bailey Pellow, who\u2019s in the gallery and has done great work on this bill, particularly helping coordinate across the House to get agreement from almost every party on this. I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227d1b5d13b69e9454cf1efc5660dd342b\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s a little unusual\u2014particularly the bit about him working so hard!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022 data-id=\u00222a41a0efba1d04e065aa73734ce84a03\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222a41a0efba1d04e065aa73734ce84a03\u0022\u003EHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (16:01)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I\u2019m really pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill at the third reading. So often\u2014and I\u2019m sure it\u2019s the case for everyone\u2014when we travel around the country and people come and talk to us about politics, on a regular basis, people say, \u201CWe just want to see Parliament working together.\u201D Well, actually, it happens quite a lot. Most of the time, it doesn\u2019t generate a headline, but it does happen quite regularly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is a perfect example of that because not only is it an example of this Parliament working together; this is the culmination of years of work. It\u2019s not because there hasn\u2019t been a genuine attempt to get it across the line; frankly, it\u2019s because severe events kept occurring. Every time there is a severe event, there are lessons to be learnt. I think that, actually, the real positive to come out of this is that there is a real culture of reviewing decisions that have been made and a real openness to learn from those and incorporate those lessons into the way in which National Emergency Management Agency and civil defence operate in this country. In actual fact, the genesis of this bill was the Christchurch earthquakes. There are lessons in this bill that are derived from the recovery of that. Of course, that\u2019s not in a short period of time; that has happened over a number of years. If we all just take a moment to think about the events that have occurred in this country since then, there\u2019s been some severe events, and each of them has born lessons that have been incorporated into this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to, as many other speakers have, acknowledge those that have played a part in this, and I appreciate the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery for his kind acknowledgments for the contribution that the Labour Party have made. Now, Mr Speaker, you know that I am a keen follower of the rules of Parliament and like to see them adhered to, but on this occasion, I\u2019m going to, with your indulgence, breach those rules, because I want to acknowledge the role that you have played, sir.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022688453393b27972d9b852ffe5584a0ce\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s OK in that case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022922bce7f3b237e9e7bc6281e03e13d3d\u0022\u003EHon KIERAN McANULTY\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I anticipated you\u2019d be comfortable with this. Actually, you were one of the first people to contact me when it became evident that Cyclone Gabrielle was going to be a significant event. You were the Opposition spokesperson for emergency management, and as a relatively new Minister, I appreciated the advice and guidance that you provided at that time that was born out of your own experiences, not just in Christchurch but through the emergency management portfolio.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EActually, as a Minister, responding to a significant event is not easy, because at the end of the day, emergency management primarily is a local government responsibility. It is local government and those local areas, be it at a district level or a regional level, that are the first to make decisions around a response, and it is the Government\u2019s job, through the National Emergency Management Agency, to support that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, in my relatively short period of time as Minister, we had the Nelson-Marlborough floods, we had the Auckland floods, and we had Cyclone Gabrielle. Each of those events was severe. The Nelson-Marlborough floods occurred basically 18 months after an equally severe event. They were still recovering. They still hadn\u2019t had the opportunity to fix some of the roads due to the nature of the soil and the impact of the ongoing rain. The Auckland floods\u2014and this is the point that\u2019s actually not often known\u2014the level of rainfall that occurred in the Auckland floods was 50\u00A0percent higher than the previous record. Now, that is just beyond comprehension. If you think about it in a practical sense, at a local government level, if somebody stood for election as the Mayor of Auckland or as a councillor and said, \u201CWe want to invest in a stormwater system that will account for a level of rainfall that is 50\u00A0percent higher than the previous record.\u201D, no one would take them seriously. But it happened.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECyclone Gabrielle is the largest weather event that has ever occurred in this country\u2019s history, and it\u2019s the only time that a national state of emergency has been declared\u2014only the third time that a national state of emergency has been declared in this country\u2019s history. I will never forget that. I\u2019ll never forget the anxiety that existed amongst those who responded to that event\u2014at a local level and in the National Emergency Management Agency, NEMA\u2014because there were areas of the country that were completely cut off. I don\u2019t mean just physically; I think of places like Wairoa, where we couldn\u2019t even contact them. The only thing that was working was a satellite phone, and that wasn\u2019t working. For basically two days, we didn\u2019t know what we were going to get into when we finally made contact to Wairoa. The air force couldn\u2019t even get in.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere was that anxiety that is fresh in my mind, but it is also what was happening when we finally did get there. We didn\u2019t know what to expect. We knew it was bad. We didn\u2019t know how bad, but when we finally landed, there was a community that was looking after their own as best they could without help up to that point. Now, that is a small example of areas right around the country at this severe event. The lessons that are derived from that have been incorporated into the bill, and it did make practical sense to look to use this opportunity to incorporate that. Thank God there hasn\u2019t been an event of the similar severity, so we\u2019ll finally be able to pass this. New Zealand will be better off because of this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen you think of the way that we do civil defence and emergency management in this country, it is that, if one region gets hit, the regions that surround it, not just immediately, but, say, if there\u2019s an event in the North Island, people come up from the South, they drop tools, they leave their families, and they run in to help. Gabrielle in particular was of such size, when you can think about it\u2014Northland, Auckland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty; you\u2019ve got the Thames-Coromandel; you\u2019ve got the East Cape, the Tair\u0101whiti area, Hawke\u2019s Bay, the Tararua district, and Wairarapa as well, and Manawat\u016B. That\u2019s a massive area. In other events, when those people would have tried to help their neighbours, they had to try and get help themselves. It was huge, and, again, the lessons from that have been incorporated into this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to take this opportunity to acknowledge those that work in civil defence and emergency management. They are deeply committed, highly competent, of exceptional skill and character, and some extremely special people. They are responding in situations and witnessing things that some of us never will, and they have to carry that. I\u2019ve got to acknowledge those people that lost their lives in Cyclone Gabrielle in particular but also the Auckland floods and other severe events\u2014it\u2019s not just weather events; it\u2019s other severe events and emergencies that occurred. At the end of the day, there but for the grace of God go I, and our natural instinct at times like that is to look after those we love, but the people in this country that work in civil defence and emergency management leave those that they love to go and help other people, alongside first responders like firefighters and police and ambulance services and also just members of the public who want to go and help their neighbours. You truly see the best of New Zealand when an event like this happens and people don\u2019t think about themselves; they think about others.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI remember the fire chief that I was speaking to in the border of Marlborough and Nelson, who, alongside his brigade, had been responding for a couple of days to help out their neighbours. Just quietly afterwards, I asked how he and his family was getting on; he mentioned that his place had been absolutely totalled. He hadn\u2019t been there. He left his own property that had been absolutely smashed to go and help other people. That is the quality of those that are involved in emergency management in this country. It is them who have fed into this process and who have informed our decisions as a Parliament. It is their lessons and their feedback that has been incorporated into this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENot only does this reflect the best of New Zealand at our hardest times; I actually think this bill reflects the best of Parliament, and I am honoured to have been able to contribute to this and commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002209a9e0ddcd6341e8a20426318dc0e6c3\u0022 data-id=\u00227d7f1483770e1f3e6a24a74dad699ad2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a9e0ddcd6341e8a20426318dc0e6c3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227d7f1483770e1f3e6a24a74dad699ad2\u0022\u003EHon MELISSA LEE (National) (16:10)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker, it is an absolute pleasure to rise to support this bill. I won\u2019t take as long as that former Minister, but I just want to actually say that all of us have experienced emergency situations, whether it\u2019s the Christchurch earthquake, the Kaik\u014Dura earthquake\u2014and on the Christchurch earthquake, I\u2019d like to acknowledge you, Mr Speaker, because I remember just how hard you actually worked during that time. All of us are better for the hard work that you\u2019ve delivered\u2014not just for Christchurch; for everyone.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI just want to acknowledge all of the advisers who supported us during the select committee process, and I want to thank all of the members who are actually supporting this bill\u2014bar a few who are not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EDo you know, as a former journalist, a good story is when it actually tells you who, what, where, when, how\u2014that\u2019s a good story. Because, sometimes, some stories you actually figure out \u201Cwho\u201D is there, but \u201Cwhat\u201D is not there and \u201Chow\u201D is not there. So this bill is about who, what, where, when, how; about the process of emergency management, and it is actually delivering for the people. When an emergency happens, we need to know who, what, where, when, how, and how we actually going to be delivering for the people who are actually in dire situation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOn that note, I\u2019d like to acknowledge the current Minister Mark Mitchell. Do you know, his nickname is \u201CStorm Chaser\u201D among our caucus. The reason why we say that is because whenever there is an emergency in New Zealand, he\u2019s nowhere to be seen in Parliament\u2014he\u2019s out there. He\u2019s shot out there to make sure that he\u2019s there for the people and for his staff, ministerial staff, and all of the people\u2014he\u2019s worried about every single one of them. I don\u2019t think he can help everyone, but he is there, and we love him to bits. I just want to say congratulations on your hard work. This is finally coming through, and I commend the bill to the House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022 data-id=\u0022a0108bdf1d3245ad2c33cac420e431d6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a0108bdf1d3245ad2c33cac420e431d6\u0022\u003EDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (16:13)\u003C/span\u003E: This legislation is long overdue. The law governing much of our emergency management system was passed in 2002, and, as Kieran McAnulty mentioned, we\u2019ve learned a lot a lot of lessons since then, particularly since the Christchurch quakes. And I\u2019d just like to touch on some of my own experience back then.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI remember when those quakes hit. My son was about six days old at the time, and I was a young soldier. We got the call to go out to Burnham Military Camp to get trucks ready, and we were given a pretty simple order. It was: the police station was closed, everything\u2019s closed, we don\u2019t know who\u2019s in charge, so we\u2019ve got to go in there and do something about it; we don\u2019t actually know what we need to do. I remember we assembled on the 2nd/1st Battalion parade ground. We got the trucks ready, we loaded up water, we loaded up ration packs, we loaded up just anything that we could grab out of our low cost hangers, and we went in there and set up cordons and found a police officer. We asked, \u201CWhere do you want us?\u201D They said, \u201CLook, just wherever.\u201D We ended up just helping people where we could, helping the police quell any disorder. There was a lot of shock in the city. But we slowly got there; we slowly helped the other emergency services get through that. It was a difficult time, but it was also a very memorable time, and you saw the community pull together. As has already been traversed through this House, you see the best of New Zealand. That was differently something that I always look back on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI remember several years later when there was the Kaik\u014Dura quakes, and a similar thing\u2014I got the call from the boss, he told me to get a platoon of soldiers together. We loaded up some trucks, and at the time we couldn\u2019t take the direct route intoKaik\u014Dura, so we had to go in through what is now famously called the inland route, and we set up shop at the Kaik\u014Dura Racecourse. There was no water, none of that, so we brought all of that in, and we set up a combat service support team down on the racecourse. The emergency operations centre (EOC) was set up in the council buildings there. One thing I remember at the time was just the fantastic service that the marae provided there. I sent electricians up there to connect the power, we had a reefer container, we brought up some K\u00E4rcher kitchens, and they were able to feed about 500 people in the community\u2014three meals a day. We were also able to resupply the supermarket there as well. Again, that was another example where we saw that community pull together, and just help in any way we can. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut there was also a lot of luck in a lot of these responses. So if we remember the Canterbury quake, we had HMNZS\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ECanterbury\u003C/span\u003E docked at Littleton Harbour, that was a lifesaver. We were able to draw on those supplies and get them into Christchurch city, and all the Defence Force personnel that were there were able to support, too. With the Kaik\u014Dura quake, for those that may not remember, there was the navy 75\u003Csup\u003Eth\u003C/sup\u003E anniversary, so we had our Five Eyes partners up at that anniversary, and they brought down their ships and we used their rotary wing support; they delivered supplies. We actually got them to help us move campervans out of the city and move tourists back down to Littleton Harbour. Again, that was a fantastic example of not just our community but our Five Eyes partners getting involved in helping us wherever we can. We see that now, particularly with Taskforce Kiwi, and they deploy people overseas to help out with natural disasters as well. I think they deserve a special acknowledgment for the work, and the routine that they\u2019ve actually established when we do set up these EOCs, and their ability to send liaison officers\u2014and we get those former Defence Force people, or former people in the emergency management space, to actually provide that assistance to us. So that deserves a special mention, there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe last thing I\u2019ll just touch on is what\u2019s next. We have the alpine fault, and according to appendix V, we have a 75 percent chance of that happening, so we need to be ready, and this bill will set us up for that. So I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c96149a439844ecfa86967f9caf5f50d\u0022 data-id=\u0022a7f93356e9ee3fa34a8eebd137510676\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c96149a439844ecfa86967f9caf5f50d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a7f93356e9ee3fa34a8eebd137510676\u0022\u003EKATIE NIMON (National\u2014Napier) (16:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker, I\u2019m very, very proud to be able to speak on the final reading of this bill as it gets passed today. I\u2019m going to keep it really brief, because I know I\u2019m going to get emotional\u2014here we go already.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECyclone Gabrielle was massive for Hawke\u2019s Bay, and we went through so much as a community. There was so much pain, people lost their lives and their livelihoods. The silver lining of the conversations that we had in the community afterwards was that something was going to change, and I\u2019m so proud of what has changed as a result. I want to say thank you to the people of Hawke\u2019s Bay for sharing those hard, hard-learnt lessons so that we could get this right. I want to say thank you across the House for working together to make sure that we didn\u2019t make this political, because it\u2019s so important that when something like this happens again, we give the community the power to be involved, and that we give people the power and protection to do what they need to do in advance of an event, so that we can protect as many lives as we possibly can.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI know I\u2019ll be able to talk to the community a lot about this in the days and weeks to come. I just want to say thank you, Minister, and thank you to everybody that\u2019s been part of it, because this is really important. I commend the bill to the house.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f692a5488786b377600b4a360088f6f0\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Sosene\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022 data-id=\u0022f5683ea08a03a862a7738851eefac1c2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006530\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f5683ea08a03a862a7738851eefac1c2\u0022\u003ELEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour\u2014M\u0101ngere) (16:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you Mr Speaker. Lemauga\u2014all good.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a31e38aa0e23491b786ded7fe5ac369d\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry\u2014my apologies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ec79c58b4fd8d8b51b2a3162a7050d05\u0022\u003ELEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you, Katie. I was trying to get through with no tears, but thank you so much for your humane response.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is what this Emergency Management Bill (No 2) does. It\u2019s really important, I want to acknowledge all of the leadership, starting with yourself, Mr Speaker; the current Minister Mitchell; also my colleague the Hon Kieran McAnulty, because you are the very people that have showed up when it\u2019s been really, really important\u2014and a number of our speakers across the House. I want to acknowledge all of our members who work hard in their communities, but, of course, it\u2019s the leadership that has been provided over a number of years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill is really important, not just to modernise but, also, to bring everything to the core in terms of the debates that we\u2019ve had across the House. I want to acknowledge the officials, because they\u2019ve played an important part in terms of legislation. We had the opportunity, on the select committee, to hear from 74 submitters, who took the time to provide those submissions, which were really important, because, as we\u2019ve heard with all the speakers on this bill, it hasn\u2019t just happened in one location; it\u2019s happened across Aotearoa, when many New Zealanders have least expected it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI am thankful for the opportunity to be able to rise and talk about our emergency management system and be able to acknowledge all of the first responders, civil defence, the National Emergency Management Agency\u2014very important roles that they do. I acknowledge, too, my colleagues in local government, because when the Auckland anniversary floods happened on that Friday night, a number of us were in the van travelling back from Titewhai Harawira\u2019s tangi, and we got stuck on the motorway and the water was rising and it was pretty scary. In that particular instance, there was panic and chaos, but then everyone had to take a deep breath in terms of just thinking things through in not much time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe purpose of this bill is to strengthen a number of systems that we have not just in legislation but, also, in terms of policies, and then relate that to the people on the ground who actually do the work. It is really important, too, that I acknowledge all of the community members, and I want to play a special tribute to iwi M\u0101ori and hap\u016B, who, as I said in an earlier contribution, just get on with the job.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to acknowledge all of the community representatives, because people just showed up. What happened in M\u0101ngere was that, firstly, the base was in another part of Auckland and then we had to move it, and Mayor Len Brown had been in the job for two days. What was important at that time was to try and calm the panic but, also, the communication. As many members across the House will know, that comes in diverse forms, so it is important, when you\u2019ve got one message\u2014to be safe and to save people\u2019s lives\u2014that you work together in a humane response.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do want to acknowledge the submitters who provided the real local stories, and it was helpful for the membership on the committee to be able to raise questions and be able to debate to get the best possible outcome that we could give. So, Minister Mitchell, I want to thank you, because you provided other advice and, also, you were able to take some of our contributions and then relay it to officials and then provide the answers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat is important for members of Parliament when we go back to our communities is to be able to talk to our communities about emergency response. As my colleague the Hon Kieran McAnulty had outlined, it\u2019s about how we respond and how we respond together. One of the things that I talked about in an earlier contribution was that we automatically, as human beings, look at human beings, but then in the situation we had in South Auckland, some of the k\u014Drero that went on was about animals. We had kaum\u0101tuas, we had community members who refused to leave their flooded homes because they needed to take their animals with them. They were members of their family that sometimes, in these debates, we do forget about in those types of scenarios. It was helpful that officials on the ground were able to give advice and were able to give care for the four-legged animals.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to acknowledge all of our communities in terms of their humane response, in terms of reduction, readiness, response, and recovery. Sometimes, in those situations, we have to make trade-offs. We have to leave behind some of those physical things to help families to move on to the next step. What is important about this legislation, when it happens to communities that we come from, is that it\u2019s important to understand the lines of accountability and, especially, the decision making. When you\u2019re dealing with diverse communities, you have to speak those love languages. You have to speak the languages that those communities understand, because they come from different backgrounds, from different religions, and the like. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to acknowledge that being part of the select committee is a huge privilege, to be able to move forward, to receive the advice from officials and the leadership, and the competency. I do want to acknowledge all of those things, because when we go back to our communities, it\u2019s the stress, it\u2019s the fear about what\u2019s next. One of the things that affected many of our tamariki in South Auckland, every time it rained after the Auckland anniversary, was just the fear of what\u2019s next. And so, the preparedness that the legislation provides is the readiness. It is important that, even though the words are in English, the behaviour that many of the members of Parliament provide for their local communities is the assurance and the empowerment that you are able to do things with as a representative of Parliament. So I\u2019m very, very proud to be a part of this\u2014to strengthen and modernise this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI specifically wanted to just point out the clarity that the legislation provides. I know I\u2019ve heard from different colleagues across the House, even in this debate, that there were things we wanted to go further and we just couldn\u2019t get to that point. However, as a bipartisan approach, I do want to acknowledge all of that leadership. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust as I make some concluding comments, I do appreciate that the legislation does provide transformational change; that it is a good direction of travel; that, as Parliament prepares the legislation, we are able to go back to our communities, we are able to inform and support and provide hope moving forward. That takes, sometimes, a lot of guts and, sometimes, when you\u2019re in a situation and it\u2019s an emergency response, you actually do provide the humane leadership. I really appreciate everyone working together in the communities right across Aotearoa. It\u2019s important, too, to achieve that transformational change that there are significant improvements, and this legislation has provided that, so I really do appreciate that. On that note, I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228078a7b3cbd68cfa86d71d45e39eb35f\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Can I thank Lemauga Lydia Sosene for that contribution, and I apologise for my muddled introduction of her earlier in the piece. Tom Rutherford.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022 data-id=\u002240ab9f2ce232705b870a95d6cfa345a3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002240ab9f2ce232705b870a95d6cfa345a3\u0022\u003ETOM RUTHERFORD (National\u2014Bay of Plenty) (16:27)\u003C/span\u003E: You\u2019ll get this one right, Mr Speaker\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002278a9e09da9c2b4291dfd7bc775dd3860\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, Thomas Rutherford.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022abbb5f46c844b735db57153445938069\u0022\u003ETOM RUTHERFORD\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, boy! As the last speaker on the Emergency Management Bill (No 2), there\u2019s been a lot of acknowledgements from my colleagues on this side and on the other side of the House around many people who have worked incredibly diligently on it. But there\u2019s three people who haven\u2019t yet been mentioned, and that\u2019s the formidable representatives from Hawke\u2019s Bay and East Coast: Katie Nimon, Catherine Wedd, and Dana Kirkpatrick, who were made parliamentary private secretaries to the Minister for cyclone recovery after they were first elected\u2014three new MPs who did a superb job supporting Minister Mitchell. And so, I just wanted to pay credit to them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s been a really well done and well-traversed debate this afternoon, and I\u2019m really proud of the incredible work that has been done across the House to get this legislation to this point. I\u2019m not going to hold it up any further, but I want to just say thank you to Minister Mitchell for his steadfast leadership on this work. And so, I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ff4843d67b9d080ff42fb642078953b5\u0022\u003ESocial Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00225f11b55b2ddcfdab0e1210d57b8a7a08\u0022\u003ESecond Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006553\u0022\u003EDebate resumed from 19 August.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002256e5a6eb2a3fb94af509898b24efe87f\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I call Celia Wade-Brown.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e66329e431ea47019b41524c6ef2954a\u0022 data-id=\u0022e74e86e8cf5611be53a24d2a150b2fe4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e66329e431ea47019b41524c6ef2954a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e74e86e8cf5611be53a24d2a150b2fe4\u0022\u003ECELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (16:29)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker\u2014well done. I rise to oppose this bill at its second reading, as we did at the first reading and as we did at the select committee. I personally was not at the Social Services and Community Committee, but I\u2019ve read a number of the submissions, I\u2019ve listened to my colleagues, and I am absolutely convinced this is a callous and mistaken bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt cuts jobseeker support eligibility for 18- and 19-year-olds, including those who are sick, injured, or disabled, and it reduces the accommodation supplement for low-income homeowners. As of June this year, Minister Upston confirmed 2,733 people were receiving jobseeker support due to a health condition, injury, or disability. Almost 70 percent of those people have a psychiatric or psychological condition. That\u2019s going to make it really hard to get a job; that\u2019s going to make it really hard to go into further education. It\u2019s going to make it really hard to go into an apprenticeship in this country. By definition, someone on that support has already been assessed by Work and Income as unable to work full-time, and media reports at the moment show hundreds of applicants for job vacancies. Cutting income support does not create a single job. The parental income test threshold in this bill is $67,225 a year for a couple, for two parents. By comparison, a backbench MP salary is over $180,000.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s almost three times more for one of us than what we\u2019re expecting two parents to be able to pay for their 18- and 19-year-olds. In my experience, 18- and 19-year-olds eat quite a lot, let alone everything else. With the increasing unaffordability of kai, this is a really brutal change to our benefit system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU) made an excellent submission. They represent over 370,000 working New Zealanders, probably more than any of the parties\u2019 membership in this House. When we were last speaking to this bill, people on the other side of the House laughed at our reference to the NZCTU. That is just not acceptable. They know a lot more about how working families actually have to manage looking after their teenagers. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThese are still teenagers. They might be old enough to vote\u2014if Minister Goldsmith encouraged them, rather than rolled back and disenfranchised people who might be wanting to enrol to vote. But they are still teenagers. In particular, for those teenagers who have disabilities, those households will have extra stress and extra costs. It might be transport-related costs for getting people with disabilities around, whether it\u2019s to job interviews, or going to university interviews, or summer schools or whatever. There are also costs for physically changing the house so that those young people can get around there. These are the very people that should be supported, not have this Government punching down upon them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI just want to refer briefly to Pou Tangata\u2019s submission, because they pointed out how hard it is for M\u0101ori, in particular.  M\u0101ori unemployment is more than double the rate for New Zealand Europeans, and, amongst young M\u0101ori, 21.8 percent of young M\u0101ori w\u0101hine and 19.1 percent of young M\u0101ori t\u0101ne are not in employment, education, or training. This is against a general youth rate of 14.4 percent. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis Government should be funding Mayors Taskforce for Jobs, not cutting their funding. The mayors in the council offices are on the ground, connected with employers, and they can help youth much more than this Government. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f0d31505882949b1a768aad60863fba9\u0022 data-id=\u002203224d0e55b94e0e6b39789a4d006d16\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f0d31505882949b1a768aad60863fba9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002203224d0e55b94e0e6b39789a4d006d16\u0022\u003EJOSEPH MOONEY (National\u2014Southland) (16:33)\u003C/span\u003E: I rise to speak on the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill at the second reading, as chair of the Social Services and Community Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill intends to support the \u201Cfiscal sustainability in the welfare system by targeting [welfare] \u2026 assistance to those most in need of support\u201D, by reducing benefit dependency among young people, by strengthening the incentives to enter employment, education, or training, and reducing reliance on the accommodation supplement for some homeowners while continuing to support vulnerable homeowners. We called for submissions on the bill and received submissions from 935 interested groups and individuals.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006564\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EInterestingly, of the 935 submitters, 817 appeared to be generated from a website called Yeah, Nah\u2014an online submission tool. That left only 118 submissions that were independent of that website, of which 19 were from organisations. Maybe we\u2019re seeing a change in the use of technology. We made some recommendations for some technical amendments and recommended by majority that it be passed. With that, I recommend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022 data-id=\u00224fefc7bf651944a8383506db493267c9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224fefc7bf651944a8383506db493267c9\u0022\u003EHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (16:35)\u003C/span\u003E: New Zealanders really cannot afford three more years of National, and this bill really demonstrates that. It goes and makes two main changes: it implements two of the Budget 2025 initiatives, and both are primarily ways of saving the Crown money, but really only in the short term. They\u2019re not very long-term ways. The two ways they do that is by applying a parental assistance test to 18- and 19-year-olds on the jobseeker or equivalent emergency benefit, and there are also changes to accommodation supplements.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EEssentially, there was a better option. If you read the regulatory impact statement\u2014often some of the most interesting work is in those, from my point of view\u2014the Ministry of Social Development actually identified a preferred option that the Government chose not to adopt. That was investing in education, investing in training and employment for young people. That would also be consistent with the Social Security Act 2018, but instead, the Minister chose to cut those services. Not only does this legislation remove that ability for 18- and 19-year-olds to get jobseeker support, and instead of that saved money being put into initiatives such as training, education, and employment initiatives, they\u2019ve also cut those initiatives at the same time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOver that last period of time, we\u2019ve seen Apprenticeship Boost being cut back, M\u0101ori and Pasifika Trades Training being cut back, and also Fees Free as well. There\u2019s really been a double whammy here, for a cohort of young people who are really struggling to get jobs. We hear loud and clear many examples of young people going for job application after job application, and the answer I hear is that there are no jobs out there for young people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is such a tough time for a young person to find work. This really makes life a lot harder for those New Zealanders who were already struggling under the economic conditions that have been made worse by the cuts. The cuts to Government services, the cuts to jobs, the cuts to our community services are biting at that end harder than ever before. It is the people directly impacted by this legislation which will be hurt more. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EYes, at select committee, it was right that the last speaker pointed out there were 933 submitters, and, of those, 930 opposed the bill. Only three submitters were in favour, and submissions largely highlighted the significant detrimental impact that this bill will have on people, particularly the reduction of access for 18- and 19-year-olds. An interesting point that was made, both in the regulatory impact statement and also through the select committee process, was that in the long-term the costs will actually be greater to the State, to the taxpayer, because while the Government has made this initiative of cutting costs in the short term, much of the analysis demonstrated that in the long term you\u2019ll have more costs\u2014whether that be additional investment in those support services, longer-term detrimental impacts on young people, all of the pressures on young people who may have to stay in a home that is not safe, for a variety of reasons, whether it\u2019s family violence or other issues\u2014all of the compounding impacts will actually end up being more costly. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s the sad thing. In balancing the benefits versus the cost, the regulatory impact statement states that for young people and their families, the cost will outweigh the benefits, significantly. In terms of the impact on young people and their families, that will be hugely detrimental. Many of those services that those young people will now be leaning on have already been cut, whether it\u2019s the cuts to Oranga Tamariki, our social service providers, our family violence providers, budgeting services\u2014all of those extra connections within our community that have felt the full brunt of the cuts of this Government\u2014those are the services that these young people will now be looking to, and the Government is cutting off service after service. All of those abilities for connections for these people are being severed.  It is not a good bill for New Zealand at all. A short-term saving is going to have a long-term detrimental impact in this space.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006571\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019d just like to close by touching on what it does to the accommodation supplement changes. It adjusts the calculation of the accommodation supplement for homeowners based on the homeowner contributing 40 percent, not 30 percent, of their income to housing costs before being eligible for a subsidy. People with unsubsidised housing costs now generally pay a higher proportion of their income towards housing. It\u2019s important to note that these changes do not apply to renters and boarders, nor homeowners who are likely to require longer-term social assistance, including those on superannuation, veterans pension, supported living payment, or even the emergency benefit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThese changes are short term. They save the Government money in the short term, but they cost our communities dearly. They cost the State more in the long run, and they are a very short-term way of thinking. It clearly demonstrates why New Zealand, quite simply, cannot afford another three years of National.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cf22a832d14a4c99ab5dfd16e24446e5\u0022 data-id=\u00220907ac8efdf81c52bc47314eec394f89\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf22a832d14a4c99ab5dfd16e24446e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220907ac8efdf81c52bc47314eec394f89\u0022\u003ERIMA NAKHLE (National\u2014Takanini) (16:41)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The most dejecting message I\u2019m hearing from the other side of the House is that 18- and 19-year-olds that are fit and able to work should, basically, just stay at home if they feel like it. On this side of the House, what we promote is aspiration in our young people. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022 data-id=\u0022d1766d9e9d789c9b787e967c63a2c0b3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d1766d9e9d789c9b787e967c63a2c0b3\u0022\u003EHon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (16:41)\u003C/span\u003E: This is another rotten bill from this Government. Tomorrow, we launch the M\u0101ori campaign for Labour in Wainui\u014Dmata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229d5b13d601794bb282d99453116ad395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227655a99cc1296b75f4a74b901aa93031\u0022\u003EHon Tama Potaka\u003C/span\u003E: Better start tomorrow.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002294f59636217d19f83fc1ca65b5ad1e79\u0022\u003EHon WILLIE JACKSON\u003C/span\u003E: Tama Potaka, he\u2019s not been invited, because we would have to escort him off the marae because of some of the terrible things he\u2019s been doing for M\u0101ori lately, particularly supporting this rotten bill that attacks young people again. Tomorrow, Willow-Jean Prime will talk about how useless Tama Potaka is and his M\u0101ori caucus\u2014well, they don\u2019t have a M\u0101ori caucus, do they? Do they have a M\u0101ori caucus? I think it\u2019s Tama Potaka\u2014not quite sure about that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETomorrow, Willow-Jean Prime will talk about this\u2014this attack on young people again, basically being exited\u2014and she will speak about some of the wonderful programmes that we funded, Willow and myself and our M\u0101ori caucus, in our six years: Mana in Mahi, He Poutama Rangatahi. These are programmes that this Government have carried on, but they have reduced the funding significantly. That\u2019s the sad part of this: these young people\u2014M\u0101ori trades training\u2014need support. They don\u2019t need to be part of the National Party\u2019s \u201Clook tough\u201D strategy, because that\u2019s what it\u2019s always about. Louise Upston has to look tough, and Paul Goldsmith has got to look tough, in terms of what\u2019s happening out there. Now we\u2019re talking about not giving assistance to 18- and 19-year-olds. There are reasons why they\u2019re at home. There are reasons why they need support. They don\u2019t need to be kicked off and booted out to tick another box for the National Party in terms of how they\u2019re dealing with young people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think there are a lot of aspects to this that we\u2019re going to enjoy telling our constituents tomorrow. We\u2019ll certainly be making it clear that we can\u2019t afford three more years of National, because they\u2019re the \u201CCut, Cut, Cut\u201D Party. Currently, they\u2019re running a campaign of hysteria, where they\u2019re actually spinning stories on TV and radio. They\u2019ve got nothing else to say but spin stories about tax. We\u2019ve been very clear\u2014very clear\u2014as a party: we only have one tax. It\u2019s a capital gains tax, and that\u2019s it\u2014no more, no less. But the \u201CCut, Cut, Cut, Cut\u201D Party wants to continually tell lies about what we\u2019re doing in Labour.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis particular bill is something that we don\u2019t support at all. I heard Joseph Mooney talking about the submissions and how people set up the submissions. Well, the National Party should know, because they\u2019ve set up so many submissions through the years it\u2019s not funny. The reality was that there were 933 submitters, as Joseph Mooney knows, and 930 opposed this terrible bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of young people, what other options does this Government offer apart from trying to boot them off Jobseeker and push them to the side? Will they invest in the programmes that we put up? I heard one of the Ministers yesterday talking about the very programmes that we know uplift young people: Mana in Mahi. Mana in Mahi, believe it or not, was a programme that I named. It was actually \u201CWorking for the Dole\u201D. I was employment Minister at the time, and I said, \u201CNo, that\u2019s not a very good name. There is mana in mahi.\u201D I gave that name, and their good friend Winston Peters asked me to give a translation on that, so that\u2019s how ridiculous it all got. Winston Peters didn\u2019t understand what Mana in Mahi was, so we had to put a translation by it. That\u2019s the ridiculous type of perspective you get from\u2014well, it\u2019s got worse with Winston Peters now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMana in Mahi was about supporting and assisting young people. We need more of those programmes. We don\u2019t need a heartless, cold Government that is attacking young people and attacking families. So shame on this Government and shame on this Minister for Social Development and Employment, Louise Upston. \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EKia ora t\u0101tou\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u00225e439d9323f5ea6af3cacacd49928fe2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225e439d9323f5ea6af3cacacd49928fe2\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Musterer\u2014Green) (16:46)\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. Thank you. I understand that Ministers are required to correct their statements at the earliest available opportunity. On Tuesday, between 3 and 4 p.m. in the House, when I asked the Minister whether any benefits had been cut through the use of the \u201Cconfirming your circumstances\u201D policies triggered by mandatory reviews, the Minister said no. There has now been media reporting basically confirming the exact opposite. I\u2019m just concerned that Ministers are not taking the earliest available opportunity to correct statements in the House that were incorrect at the time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e6394def6f17b0e7d0d2745c8a57e208\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll just take some advice there. Here it is. This could be a matter of privilege, so this should be raised with the Speaker by letter if you feel that this is what has actually happened. OK, we\u2019ll take the next call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022739b3bbed7fe4186aa30494700144b3a\u0022 data-id=\u00222d2b892f187fe534eaeabcc9c7c94d3d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022739b3bbed7fe4186aa30494700144b3a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222d2b892f187fe534eaeabcc9c7c94d3d\u0022\u003EPAULO GARCIA (National\u2014New Lynn) (16:47)\u003C/span\u003E: This bill is about fiscal sustainability for the welfare system, targeted to help the most in need. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022 data-id=\u0022286192424a8277943adca6076a59a365\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022286192424a8277943adca6076a59a365\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert) (16:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. We hear that word \u201Csustainability\u201D a lot these days, and it\u2019s all about cutting things, isn\u2019t it\u2014cutting money. We can\u2019t afford three more years of this kind of behaviour, and I want to just give one example from this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe have here a bill that the people who I really rate on this stuff, the Ministry of Social Development, say is a bad idea. They said, in the regulatory impact statement, that they didn\u2019t like the Minister\u2019s preferred option. They said that what the Minister was doing was wrong. They were pretty compelling in terms of why they thought it would be and what they thought was an alternative. They suggested that we provide more education and training services to this very group and that what we\u2019re doing is reprehensible, and that what we\u2019re doing is we\u2019re taking the group that aren\u2019t getting work, and they are not able to do that because there is much, much less opportunity to do that, and we\u2019re punishing them for the fact that there is no work\u2014something that this Government has contributed to and now seeks to blame on the very group most affected.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, that is set out in the regulatory impact statement. It says it clearly. It talks about the economic conditions that affect this group. It says, \u201CEconomic conditions are a driver for the numbers of people in receipt of Jobseeker Support. Young people tend to be affected more by economic shocks and generally have large increases in benefit numbers [due to] economic slowdowns. This is because young people are more likely to have lower skill levels, more casual employment arrangements, and high levels of employment in sectors like the service industry, which are more exposed to the effects of economic downturns\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis Government created that downturn. It absolutely created it. The very people impacted are now blamed for what is going on, and there isn\u2019t even a help up. This is actually the cut-off of those people from the very services that will put them into employment and will avoid them becoming beneficiaries. What the Ministry of Social Development says is that, actually, as a consequence, we will see these people back in the dole queues at 20, when we could have fixed the problem when they came out of school. I do not commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002290f442a79aea4ce0aeae083763135935\u0022 data-id=\u002243e617e6b0d444275b68a76adda9a2bb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290f442a79aea4ce0aeae083763135935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002243e617e6b0d444275b68a76adda9a2bb\u0022\u003ECARL BATES (National\u2014Whanganui) (16:50)\u003C/span\u003E: This Government expects 18-and 19-years olds to be in further education or work, not on welfare. If they can\u2019t support themselves, it should be their parents that support them. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022570d5ba9572ed15b1a4244b4a17ee6cc\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments\u00A0recommended by the Social Services and Community Committee by majority be agreed\u00A0to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill be now read a second time\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 40\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 27; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a second time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a6ec89b06bc6d042ad0c8ae783119dd8\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: This bill is set down for committee stage immediately.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI declare the House in committee for consideration of the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022175efe9ba0a7e72b90f9e4377ae10563\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f956839b8f1d30da7e618f9bd2626617\u0022\u003EPart 1 Jobseeker support and equivalent emergency benefit: tightening eligibility, and Schedule 1\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b980f0ec289e5d3f3edd7e330204be61\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the House is in committee on the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill. We start with the debate on Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 4 to 12, \u201CJobseeker support and equivalent emergency benefit: tightening eligibility\u201D, and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u00227b41ead3b496a68ad3ac4aefbc31b81d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227b41ead3b496a68ad3ac4aefbc31b81d\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (16:53)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I\u2019ll seek your guidance on whether I\u2019m actually addressing this in the right part. Anyway, just in clause 4\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022707032f58e965a00b696509f3f516d9b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: As long as you\u2019re on clause 4, you\u2019re fine.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224ce40394525b4bb4804745de8fffafc7\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH\u003C/span\u003E: OK, all good. Thank you. In clause 4, on \u201CAfter section 20(c)insert: (ca) meets the parental income requirement\u201D I just wanted to focus on the \u201Cparental income requirement\u201D to begin with. Would the Minister for Social Development and Employment be able to outline what she intends to have the parental income requirements set at when the bill gets passed, and the rationale for it all. I\u2019m interested in the amount she intends for that to be set at and why that amount has been set.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other question I have in relationship to the parental income requirement is: why did she choose to have it as a combined parental income? For example, say that, theoretically, hypothetically, it was $70k, why would she not make it $70k individually\u2014so $140k combined? If you set the parental income combined to just $70k, that means, for example, that somebody would not have their benefit if their parents earned $35k each. That feels like an extremely low amount to set the parental income test. I don\u2019t know many families that would be actually able to cover both their needs and on top of that adequately support an 18-year-old on a combined income of $70k for, say, three people\u2014maybe four people if the fourth person in that house was an underage person. I\u2019m really keen to understand the rationale behind it and what amount she hopes that to be.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI am also keen to understand\u2014and I may have some more questions on this depending on the answer\u2014whether that income threshold requirement will be adjusted to reflect median-wage changes or Consumers Price Index changes, and whether that is her intention to adjust that threshold accordingly. While clause 4 may just be one sentence, I think the substance of it is really meaningful, because, at the end of the day, it\u2019s the message that this clause sends to everyday working parents as to whether they\u2019re in a position to adequately support their children. As we have heard from the members on the other side of the Chamber, even when the issue around cancer patients has been raised or people with ill mental health, with psychological and psychiatric conditions, the members on the opposite side have talked about how those are the responsibility of the parents, even if they\u2019re full adults. That\u2019s why I\u2019m asking about the rationale for the amount and whether it\u2019s going to be adjusted. I\u2019ll have some more comments on clause 5 after that. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022d741d232f50bc1fe05f74c0837426606\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d741d232f50bc1fe05f74c0837426606\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (16:56)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The member Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March asks questions around the parental assistance test. There are two components, and for a young person they could either have one or both of the following components. The parental support gap test\u2014we recognise that there will be some 18- and 19-year-olds who, for a variety of reasons, have a disconnected relationship with their parents. So there is a parental support gap test.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen he was also asking specifically about the parental income test. That is looking at the combined gross parental income of the young person\u2019s applicable parents. The income limit is currently $67,225. That\u2019s been aligned to the gross income cut-out point for a couple with dependent children receiving the supported living payment. It\u2019s one of the highest benefit cut-out points in the Social Security system, and that\u2019s why that\u2019s been chosen, to allow young people from low-income families to access relevant benefits. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of the member\u2019s question around whether it will be adjusted annually, it will be adjusted as part of the annual general adjustment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022 data-id=\u0022fff9163a2752005456bd0c61dbf1b52e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fff9163a2752005456bd0c61dbf1b52e\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert) (16:57)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I agree that clause 4 is important, because it sets up the system; although it\u2019s a short line, it actually stands for a lot. I want to ask some questions about the culpability of parents for this responsibility. We have here, a group of people who are 18 and 19, and they are, traditionally, adults in our society; they stand on their own two feet. I\u2019d like the Minister for Social Development and Employment to tell us why it is that we have drawn a line here, when, in fact, this is the time when people vote; it\u2019s the time when they can take a whole lot of actions and they are actually recognised, traditionally, as independent in that way. Yet, they\u2019re not going to be in this circumstance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019d also like to know about the decision made to set a parental income test, which is not dependent on the reality of the life of that family. For a minute, let\u2019s assume that we have decided that we\u2019re going to have the parents responsible; there\u2019s a really big difference between families in terms of how far an income goes. If, for example, the family has lots of children, that\u2019s going to mean that an income doesn\u2019t go as far. There are other expenses. How has the Minister taken those other expenses into account when setting this test, which seems to be just set straight on a threshold of income and doesn\u2019t seem to take into account how far the income will go given the liabilities of that family? Obviously, that\u2019s true with regard to things like mortgages, because mortgages and rent are something that makes a big difference. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf you\u2019re lucky enough to live in your grandma\u2019s home and, in fact, you\u2019ve got minor expenses, which happens in some families were there is property, it\u2019s a very different situation from a situation where you\u2019re mortgaged up to the hilt and, in fact, you\u2019ve managed to keep it together and your kids have been at the same school because you have taken on that kind of debt\u2014you\u2019ve managed to do the right thing by your kids, but you\u2019ve got very, very little discretionary income. I was wondering about that decision and what the story was in terms of making any kind of allowance for a discretion in that situation where it\u2019s causing issues. And obviously that relates to something that others have raised around the potential of issues like disability being involved. What happens when you\u2019ve got expenses that are just out of the ordinary, in that way? Is there something that brings some humanity to this picture?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006615\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI was also interested, in terms of evidence, about the amount chosen. My understanding is the amount chosen is $67,225. What\u2019s the basis for this figure? Why that figure? Why not $70,000? Why not $75,000? Why not $49,000? What\u2019s going on there that picks this number above all others? And what is the Minister doing when she decides on that figure? Is she saying that that really is sufficient in any circumstance? I\u2019ve given an example there of a family with lots of children, or a family with a child with a disability, or a parent with a disability, or a parent with an illness. Where is the humanity in that system built into it? Is it built into it? And did she consider building it into it? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI definitely agree that we got submissions that were very considered, and they were very strong in their opposition to this bill. Did she read those submissions and take them into account, in terms of these issues? They seem to me to be, actually, practical issues, and they will cause practical harm if we don\u2019t have something that reflects that kind of concern, which I just see as utterly practical. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI appreciate my time is up so I might just hope for those answers, and then I\u2019ll come back on some more questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u00225d852dc4ee4a1371263aea681e90c897\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225d852dc4ee4a1371263aea681e90c897\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:02)\u003C/span\u003E: I have explained the reason behind the setting of the parental income test and the dollar threshold, so I won\u2019t go over that again. The member asks about why the ages of 18 to 19 years old and why didn\u2019t we go up to 25, which is what the settings are in other countries.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EOne of the concerns, obviously, in terms of why we\u2019ve brought this bill to Parliament is the number of future years that a young person in New Zealand will stay on welfare, if they go on under the age of 20 or under the age of 25. We have an expectation that young people are in education, employment, or training. That\u2019s the intent behind this. For us, there\u2019s lots of different parts of New Zealand legislation that go up to 25\u2014are 18, are 20, are 21\u2014but we felt 18 and 19 years old was a fair and reasonable age for parents to be responsible for their children. But, look, we want them to be in employment, education, or training, and that\u2019s the clear, simple answer for that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u0022cc9c78c0fbd7b32a64260ce2f0a4a7fb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cc9c78c0fbd7b32a64260ce2f0a4a7fb\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (17:04)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you so much, Mr Chair. I have one more call on clause 4 before I move on to clause 5, which I\u2019ll have quite a few questions on, so I\u2019m just flagging that. I\u2019m mindful other members may still want to have calls on clause 4.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFirst of all, I\u2019m interested in the debating point that the Minister just opened up, around the intent of the consecutive years that people spend on a benefit as a rationale for the settings from the parental income test. Would the Minister be able to confirm whether those years are\u2014how many there are? I know that she\u2019s talked about quite a large amount, and it\u2019s not clear to me whether they\u2019re 20 years, for example, in one go, or whether they\u2019re throughout a lifetime. I\u2019m also interested in knowing whether the figure that she refers to has any sort of additional criteria that, for example, hinges on those young people having experience in State care, poverty, ill-health, because I understand there may be some Ministry of Social Development research that shows that to be the case. Since she opened up that debating point on the consecutive years as a justification for clause 4, I\u2019m interested in knowing the rationale behind the study that she is referring to when it comes to that consecutive year talking point to justify these provisions. Like I said, I\u2019m particularly interested in whether they\u2019re actually consecutive or throughout a lifetime, and the sample or modelling that was done from that argument to create these clauses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006622\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnother point that I want to address in relationship to the response she gave us: she talked about\u2014and she is right, and I appreciate the engagement on my first question\u2014where the parental income test threshold came from. I heard it was the supported living payment (SLP) threshold. Can I ask whether that threshold\u2014the supported living payment threshold\u2014is sufficient to live well on. We know, and we\u2019ve heard from disabled people and people on the supported living payment, that $67,000-odd is actually still a pretty small amount. The thing is, when you take into account the fact that this is taken as combined income between two parents, that\u2019s still quite low. I\u2019m interested in knowing whether she actually deems the supported living payment threshold to be enough for families to live well on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to know why she didn\u2019t explore\u2014or did she explore?\u2014other thresholds that could be said to, perhaps, better reflect the cost of living that we experience in this country. For example, the supported living payment threshold, as far as I\u2019m aware, is not set through calculating a basket of goods or the average median rent payments, or other costs in this country and other sorts of expenses. As far as I\u2019m aware, other forms of calculation are probably used to get to that point, so it\u2019s just not clear to me whether that supported living payment threshold was just an arbitrary number that was chosen, or the rationale behind it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006624\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe parents of these adults are not people with long-term health conditions or disabilities; they\u2019re often people who may be in work. Their conditions are, actually, completely unrelated to the criteria for the supported living payment, so I don\u2019t understand why a benefit payment that is so unrelated to, say, for example, working parents, is being used as a data point or as a parallel point of a dollar figure to actually use for the calculation of this parental income requirement. That, to me, just points to a concern around the lack of evidential basis as to setting this threshold in line with the SLP.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf she would be able to tell the committee whether other types of threshold were considered, and what were they, and whether the supported living payment threshold actually is enough to adequately make ends meet, and what evidential basis she has to justify this\u2014without this, it just kind of feels like the Government went \u201CEeny, meeny, miny, moe\u201D and then chose the SLP threshold without any actual proper justification for it. I\u2019d be keen to know whether she thinks all these parents have a similar criteria or circumstances as people who are on the SLP, who may be, for example, trying to enter into employment or otherwise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022 data-id=\u00220a257b79e072625488ffef6048ad4a0e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220a257b79e072625488ffef6048ad4a0e\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert) (17:09)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. It\u2019s a question I want to ask which relates to the issue of the decision made to couple an adult child with a parent. It\u2019s a question that I would really love an answer to. I would like an answer to that too\u2014that initial question\u2014but my question is: in this situation, the parent is being required to give information across about their financial status and their private financial information. How does that reconcile with the fact they\u2019re being required to do it for a person who is of independent status in the eyes of the law?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006627\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI hope that you understand my question, but it seems to me a strange thing. It would be as if the Minister was applying for a benefit and, as a result, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) could actually ask me for my personal information. I appreciate that the relationship is slightly stronger, but it actually, at law, isn\u2019t. There\u2019s a separation of people, at that level. What advice did the Minister for Social Development and Employment get on, basically, an insistence on information from a third party\u2014being, in this case, a parent\u2014for that information? It becomes a lot more complicated when you think about estranged families as well where you do have another party, often a father, but there could be anybody who may be relevant to that conversation and to that information as far as MSD is concerned, given that their income is relevant here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve asked a related question in other cases where the Government\u2019s been restricting access because I get concerned, particularly about agreements out there between parents based on income. They usually come to an end when the child is a certain age and it\u2019s very unusual for them to go on indefinitely, and they\u2019re private contractual agreements, albeit often with the sanction of a court. What happens in those circumstances where the other parent has no liability at law because that decision has been made, absolutely, in good faith at a certain time? What happens, then, to that question of requiring information and liability? Because that parent has often taken a stand that the child is no longer eligible for any kind of support after that age. While that might not be what we\u2019d all want to happen, it is what actually happens. I would be very keen to know what the Minister has to say to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006629\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019d also like the Minister to answer the question about that level of payment when we talked about the $67,000. I still haven\u2019t heard an answer to that, and it actually is an answer I need to be able to find out so I can ask other questions, so I\u2019d ask for some priority in answering about that level. It relates to what my friend Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March has asked about what kind of testing was done on the viability of that amount. I do note that the figures that are used are all gross figures. It seems that there\u2019s a disconnection from the reality of what a family has in their hand, because at $67,225 gross, that\u2019s not exactly what they\u2019ll have in their hand at all. It relates to my question about expenses, but why was the amount that was decided upon a gross amount rather than an actual amount given that\u2019s the reality of what that family are living off?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve got a big question that I want to ask, and I\u2019m not sure I have time to ask it in this round, and perhaps I can just start it. That question is about the divorcing of these kids who are coming in and not being able to get a benefit from other services that MSD provide. I could continue with that with the leave of the\u2014nope? I\u2019ll just wait and ask it in the second round.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006631\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d87ca596ff1e7c8e7957c6604ced5c5b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: No, you can keep going.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225e468d9596294931def20a5ce24b05da\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE\u003C/span\u003E: I can? Thank you. I\u2019ll just take this call. My concern here is quite a big one. You\u2019ve got a group of kids that we know are our most vulnerable kids. They have come out of school, and we know they are our most vulnerable because, as the Minister says, they\u2019re the ones who are most likely to end up staying on the benefit system if we don\u2019t get it right. We used to actually have a front door for them, which was MSD, and it was related to them going in and saying, \u201CLook, I can\u2019t find a job.\u201D At that point, all sorts of things should kick in.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006633\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, we haven\u2019t done a great job over the last few decades of that. We\u2019ve tried and it\u2019s improved at times, and I\u2019m glad to say that it improved under the last Labour Government, but that\u2019s when we need to look after them. That\u2019s when we can pour in the energy and we can connect them to work. What I don\u2019t understand here is that the focus of this is to cut off that doorway, and it doesn\u2019t seem to address it separately. It isn\u2019t a bill that says, \u201CWe are going to say that you can\u2019t have a benefit, but here\u2019s the help we are going to give you. We are going to make sure that we wrap around you in this way.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat is going on here? One of the things that\u2019s going on is actually really, really hard to fix. It\u2019s that there are no jobs for that group of people. But, actually, it\u2019s also the time when we can wrap around, and yet what we are saying to them is go and find yourself a course and pay for it and have a student loan, and even though you\u2019re not ready, or you might not be appropriately in that space, that seems to be what we\u2019re saying to them: you\u2019re on your own and your family will sort it out in that time frame. Isn\u2019t that the critical time for the design of the legislation to be that those people get that assistance in finding an appropriate solution to unemployment at a time when they\u2019re extremely vulnerable to that becoming something that keeps going? Because that\u2019s what I heard the Minister tell me repeatedly, that she was connecting unemployment at this stage with a kind of \u201Cmany years of unemployment\u201D situation, as if it was a bad habit. But isn\u2019t it much more likely that it was the result of our failure to deal appropriately with that group at that time? Isn\u2019t that what the Ministry of Social Development is all about? Isn\u2019t that one of Government\u2019s roles\u2014to make sure we\u2019re connecting people? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is about why we have focused, in this legislation, in these first paragraphs, on denying the benefit to this group in a kind of cut-throat way and not being focused on what we\u2019re going to do with this group of people. We do know, because it said in the regulatory impact statement repeatedly, that (a) their unemployment is a result of the economic conditions, but (b) that that was their preferred option. They say it really clearly. They say they don\u2019t like what the Minister\u2019s done here. They say that what they think would work is a whole lot of wraparound at that stage. I\u2019d like the Minister to answer it in terms of the context of these early focus paragraphs on cutting off support, and she can tell me what provisions she\u2019s made to make sure that there is still an open door at MSD. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022e76e51ac3873644dc1520975894d19e0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e76e51ac3873644dc1520975894d19e0\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair, there are quite a few questions in there, some of which we\u2019ve covered. In terms of 18- or 19-year-olds, the forecast social outcomes modelling that\u2019s been done over many, many years looks at the average future years someone will spend on the benefit. It is not consecutive. It might be someone moving on and off. If they go on to the benefit under the age of 20, their future average years is 21. The member referred to some factors. If people have some of those factors, it\u2019s likely to be longer than the 21 years. A similar system is the student allowance scheme, which we\u2019ve had in New Zealand for a very long time. That is actually under 25, where there is reliance on family for support and the family income test, so there\u2019s nothing new about asking for parents\u2019 income information. That\u2019s been well deployed for decades in the student allowance system, so no dramas there in terms of asking parents for their information.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs I said before, the level has been set because we recognise that in terms of satisfying a parental income test, we wanted to ensure that households with low incomes weren\u2019t required to provide that financial support for their 18- and 19-year-olds. The low-income families\u2014that was determined at the most generous rate of the social security system. That\u2019s why that level has been set.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006638\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of whether or not 18- and 19-year-olds can access Ministry of Social Development (MSD) support, of course they can. There is a wide range of support that the team at MSD provide each and every day for someone who walks in the door. They might not be eligible for a benefit, but there are jobs available. There\u2019s job matching, work-readiness resources, training information, driver-licensing support, and online learning opportunities, and there may well be the ability to enrol a young person\u2014depending on their circumstances\u2014in an employment programme, but also MSD has got access to a wide range of training providers. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006639\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs I\u2019ve said at the start, this is about ensuring that young people are in employment, education, or training. We accept that for some young people, it might be challenging to find employment now, and so a better option for them right now might be training or education.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006640\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022736dc11f3bfaa0f0e987c66162821ebf\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Before I take the next contribution, just note that contributions have been contextual and high level, but it would assist the committee and the Minister, I suspect, in addressing questions, if those contributions could be focused to the specific clauses. That would assist the Minister to be able to address that more specifically, and it would help us to move through the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u0022be68e61a8df8b6d8c1d04d9c86acb3be\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006641\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022be68e61a8df8b6d8c1d04d9c86acb3be\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (17:21)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I\u2019m moving on to clause 5. First of all, this is inserting new sections after section 23 of the Social Security Act. I\u2019m interested in\u2014sorry, the Minister is talking. I\u2019ll just wait so that she can\u2014OK, cool. I\u2019ve got the attention of the Minister\u2014great.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 5, \u201CJobseeker support: parental income requirement: when specified young person is subject to it\u201D, basically, is the one where I\u2019ll be asking some more questions on the settings around it. First of all, one debating point that the Minister for Social Development and Employment opened up was the argument around the fact that households with low incomes are being excluded, and the most generous rate in the welfare system is treated as the threshold to delineate who is a low-income household and who is not a low-income household. Can I ask the Minister, to begin with: is a family earning $68,000 not a low-income household? It seems like she chose a line, and I\u2019m asking whether a family on $68k is not deemed to be a low-income household, because that just, personally, kind of feels a little out of touch, but I\u2019d love to hear the Minister\u2019s rationale for it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006643\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019d like to now focus my attention on my tabled amendment that was tabled at 15.20.00 today. This amends clause 5 by adding new section 23A(2)(d), at page 4, after line 35, to make it clear that, basically, we would want to make sure that somebody with a health condition, an injury, or a disability is able to get their benefit, despite these tests. The reason for this is that I\u2019m interested to know if the Minister would support it. We know from the select committee work that there are about almost 2,700 young people between the ages of 18 and 19 who are on jobseeker\u2014health condition, injury, or disability. By definition, these are people who would have been deemed to not be able to work full time and, therefore, they have been exempt from some of the requirements in the jobseeker system. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI just do not seem to understand why, when I look at the Social Services and Community Committee\u2019s report and evidence\u2014and we know that in that list we have cancer patients, people with skin disorders, congenital disorders. The vast majority of people in that list include people with psychological or psychiatric conditions, and my amendment to clause 5 would seek to exclude those very same groups because, basically, if the Minister doesn\u2019t take my amendment, what clause 5 does, effectively, is include thousands of young people with health conditions that could be quite severe. That, to me, is really concerning because, particularly, the language around new section 23A and in clause 5 more broadly doesn\u2019t differentiate between just jobseeker beneficiaries and jobseekers on the grounds in terms of their having a health condition, an injury, or a disability. Without sort of demarcating a line in how the bill is written to directly exclude that group, the Minister is acknowledging that those people\u2014who may be facing quite serious health conditions\u2014may still have to be forced, as adults, to depend on their parents\u2019 incomes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006645\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt takes me back to my previous question. Say that you\u2019re one of the cancer patients included in this list and you\u2019re in a household with a combined income of $70k: does the Minister think that that is an adequate level of support a household will provide to a cancer patient; if not, why not? If she does not think it is adequate, would she be willing to accept my amendment to clause 5 to exclude people who are on job seeker, but on the grounds of their having a health condition, an injury, or a disability, from having to be subjected to the parental income requirement, from being the sort of \u201Cspecified young person\u201D being subjected to it, as is written in clause 5? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Minister will know that this is an area that I particularly care about, and it is one that I just feel does not adequately meet the intent of the bill, because I\u2019ve been told that she wants people to be in study or training. But tell me that a cancer patient or somebody with ill mental health\u2014you know, the Minister may not know whether it\u2019s severe or moderate or not, but based on the statistics\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df3e6766443b46819410ad4fedf34077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222004a78ce84c397c22d202a404428cb6\u0022\u003EStuart Smith\u003C/span\u003E: What clause?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006648\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225ec6301fafdb4657af71b64e609eda89\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH\u003C/span\u003E: That is clause 5, around the types of benefits. I recommend that the member on the other side reads and understands the welfare system if he wants to challenge how it is relevant.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019m interested in getting the Minister\u2019s support for my amendment, and I\u2019ve got more contributions on clause 5. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u00225dd1f1bb78060f677be214e170c9c778\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006650\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225dd1f1bb78060f677be214e170c9c778\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:26)\u003C/span\u003E: I think it\u2019s really important just to put on the record that any 18-or 19-year-old that is permanently or severely restricted in their capacity to work would be eligible for a supported living payment. I think it is important to make that distinction between those who are on the jobseeker benefit. What is also, I think, useful to note is that a third of those who are currently on jobseeker\u2014health condition, injury, or disability\u2014are already working, actively seeking work, or wanting more hours. We\u2019re clear about the focus and the intent of this bill being about the long-term and future outcomes for young New Zealanders, and the closer they remain to the labour market and/or they\u2019re participating in training, even if for a small amount of time, we know that that does improve their future outcomes, and that\u2019s what we\u2019re focused on. So we won\u2019t be supporting the member Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u2019s amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u0022625ff5e5cb691dcfa40176234a162472\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022625ff5e5cb691dcfa40176234a162472\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (17:27)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you so much, Mr Chair. In focusing on who the Minister deems to be a \u201Cspecified young person\u201D, I\u2019m kind of looking at also, for example, the language around new section 23A(2) and just more broadly about how we deem these people. Can I confirm with the Minister whether she deems that 70 percent of people who are on jobseeker\u2014health condition, injury, or disability\u2014are not worthy of receiving support just because they\u2019re not in employment? Just based on her previous answer, it just kind of feels like including them on the \u201Cspecified young person\u201D list in clause 5 is a little bit odd. She talked about how 30 percent of those who receive that benefit are actively seeking work or are in employment, but that means that 70 percent of them are not. They would still be categorised as a \u201Cspecified young person\u201D for the purposes of the parental income requirement in new section 23A, and so I just wanted to test that with the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAdditionally, in regard to the definition of a specified young person who is subjected to the parental income requirement in clause 5, I\u2019m interested in knowing whether she genuinely believes that\u2014you know, she talked in the previous answer about there being better improved outcomes and proximity to the labour market. But if the support that a specified young person would be receiving right now is due to their health condition and, therefore, it is intended for that health condition to improve, how exactly does stripping a young person of their support while they\u2019re facing an injury actually get them closer to the labour market, as she has just claimed in her answers? Those two things just do not seem to be actually consistent with the evidence that we know around health outcomes. The inquiry into mental health, for example, found that there\u2019s a close link between incomes and mental health outcomes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI know that the National Party whip, during my previous contribution, tried to challenge the relationship with the clause, but these are the people who are the specified young persons in clause 5\u2014like I\u2019m putting a face to who this clause refers to, and so we can\u2019t actually decouple the \u201Cspecified young person\u201D as an abstract concept when we know that it includes thousands of people who are injured, sick, or disabled.  The rationale that the Minister just gave me for including them in the \u201Cspecified young person\u201D definition just seems to not really add up in terms of what we know. I just wonder whether she consulted, in the definition of a specified young person in clause 5, with any health experts that told her that, actually, cutting income support leads to better health outcomes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELastly, in this contribution on clause 5, I wanted to ask whether the Minister is genuinely confident that anyone who actually should be on the supported living payment (SLP) is currently so, because I think she\u2019ll know, and I think any constituency MP will know, that a lot of people on jobseeker - health condition, injury or disability face huge barriers to enter into the supported living payment. She knows quite well that the Ministry of Social Development can review those doctors\u2019 letters and challenge the doctor who may want to push someone on to the SLP.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006655\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EShe\u2019s giving us this guarantee, \u201CDon\u2019t worry. If you\u2019ve got a serious health condition, you\u2019ll be on SLP.\u201D, but can she guarantee to me that no specified young person, as defined in clause 5, will include anyone who is trying to get on the SLP and has been unable to? Does she recognise that, because of the time it takes for a GP to get your documentation ready to meet the criteria of the SLP, there will be some people who are trying to get on to the SLP who are currently on jobseeker and are deemed specified young persons under the definitions of this bill who will be missing out on income, despite having serious health issues?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI just cannot see how the Minister could genuinely guarantee to me that no one with a serious health condition will be deemed a specified young person for the purposes of this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00223b2d52c8e0fd1234ad73bce83fa9569d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223b2d52c8e0fd1234ad73bce83fa9569d\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:31)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. This is my first call on this bill, so I do want to just check a couple of things with the Minister for Social Development and Employment. Noting what you have stated previously, Mr Chair, I just want to ask a couple of very quick questions. The first one is: looking at the regulatory impact statement, page 3, can the Minister just very succinctly let the committee know why the option that the Minister has preferred is different from the option that is in the regulatory impact statement? That just helps, I guess, the committee to set some of the scene.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to pick up on what the Minister said before in terms of when it comes to parental income requirements already being available in the student allowance, and I think the specific term that Minister has mentioned is that there are \u201Cno dramas there\u201D. I wondered, in that particular instance, when we\u2019re looking at existing parental income requirements that already exist in the student allowance, has the Minister actually consulted with the peak bodies for students, who do potentially have experience around the student allowance\u2014such as various university student associations, like Otago University Students\u2019 Association, Auckland University Students\u2019 Association, and Victoria University of Wellington Students\u2019 Association\u2014just to check on whether there actually are any dramas with the current parental income threshold when it comes to the student allowance, to be able to know some of the policy issues that we are looking at here when we are introducing new parental income requirements under clause 5?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMoving on to clause 5, I want to start with new section 23A(1), and I want to specifically focus on paragraphs (a) and (b), because (a) and (b) are worded in a way that looks at \u201Capplied or reapplied\u201D and \u201Cgranted or regranted\u201D. I think this is an interesting point to mention, because what this does is it\u2019s not simply targeting people who are applying for jobseeker support, with a range of various jobseeker support that is affected\u2014my colleague Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March has already mentioned some of them that, potentially, would be challenging. But, in this case, can I just check that will also capture people who would be then reapplying for jobseeker support as well, and whether there is any work that is being done or any modelling that is being done on how those who are reapplying, who are now going to be captured under this new system, will be affected by this new system if the support isn\u2019t there between when they applied and were maybe successfully granted the jobseeker support versus what is currently now stated under this new legislation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, my colleague\u2019s amendment\u2014this is my final question, Mr Chair, for this particular call\u2014is around the fact that, as it stands, those with health conditions, disability, or illnesses are being captured in this, but what I\u2019m not seeing in the regulatory impact statement is how this upholds our requirements under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Has the Minister received any formal advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) on this particular bill\u2019s alignment with our international obligations?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAgain, we see that there are certain obligations that we have in terms of our international obligations but also in terms of things, as we see in some of the other bills that have been introduced, with our international trade agreements as well. I do want to check with the Minister because of specific requirements that we have, for example, in the NZ-EU free-trade agreement (FTA). In the context of this particular bill and the fact that disabled people are going to be captured as a part of this, has there been any advice taken from MFAT on how this would also impact our current FTAs or trade agreements?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022677a2b48e39ce613d55ffd64d3bd1bb8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022677a2b48e39ce613d55ffd64d3bd1bb8\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:36)\u003C/span\u003E: The member asks about \u201Cgrants or regrants\u201D. When the bill comes into effect, the parental income test and parental support gap will be applied across the board.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe comment around the student allowance referred to a previous member\u2019s question around whether it was suitable to be able to ask about a parent\u2019s income. I was simply saying there is already a way in which that is done with student allowances.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022 data-id=\u00224e75f910d0fcc0c1a8e59069fe3d1aff\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224e75f910d0fcc0c1a8e59069fe3d1aff\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert) (17:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I just want to ask questions that are concerning my portfolio, which is the prevention of sexual and family violence. I\u2019m concerned, in terms of this clause, with the provisions that go from new section 23G right through\u2014they\u2019re all under this clause. They go on and they say that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has capacity to decide who the parent is, who is liable, etc. There are a group of different people who might be liable in various circumstances, and then it\u2019s MSD that makes that determination.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy concern is that, when it comes to disclosing sexual abuse and physical abuse in families, that\u2019s something that people don\u2019t necessarily do. It isn\u2019t the reality of the situation. I\u2019d like the Minister for Social Development and Employment to answer in terms of what safety measures have been put into place which mean that somebody who is an 18- or 19-year-old coming into the office and being subjected to that kind of assessment as to which parents are liable\u2014what kind of measures are there to make sure that young people who will not necessarily disclose those things are dealt with appropriately before the responsibility for them is assigned to one of the groups under these sections?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen I\u2019ve got a question about clause 6. I can see there that clause 6 is about emergency benefits and it\u2019s about the discretionary grant that is usually available upon proof of hardship. Now, I appreciate that this is an attempt to line things up, but it says in this section that the young person who would be ineligible, as far as I can understand it, under this particular change, for jobseeker support, will also not meet this criteria. I just wanted to know what sort of grants we are talking about and what sort of circumstances of hardship we are talking about. They\u2019re not just locked out of jobseeker support; they\u2019re locked out of those discretionary grants. I am really keen on discretion in these systems, because it mops up some very real situations people find themselves in. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u002241ed10bd18cb6c60280adba2cf8f5c91\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002241ed10bd18cb6c60280adba2cf8f5c91\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:40)\u003C/span\u003E: The parental support gap is designed to cover situations where there might be a young person who\u2019s had a family breakdown or relationship breakdown or where there is family harm involved and risk. That\u2019s exactly why there is a parental support gap test in the legislation as a safeguard.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u0022a2910b701b67c64ece80279565097a17\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a2910b701b67c64ece80279565097a17\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (17:40)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you so much, Mr Chair. I\u2019m on page 5, on new section 23C, inserted by clause 5. One of the areas that I wanted to cover was the language that says\u2014around lines 30 and 35\u2014\u201C(regardless of whether A has a spouse or partner who is subject to, and meets, the parental income requirement)\u201D. This is the dynamic in relation to how the relationship rules in the welfare system are applied to a specified young person, so I just want to get the Minister\u2019s clarification as to whether it is her intention that, say, if you\u2019ve got A applicant\u2014for example, an 18-year-old, an adult, who lives in a combined income household of $70K, and they have a partner who is also unemployed, which probably statistically is not insignificant, considering the youth unemployment rate. Under new section 23C, my interpretation of it would be that if that other partner, say, comes from not just a low-income family but a very, very, very low-income family\u2014say, a combined household income of $45K\u2014that A still wouldn\u2019t be able to get a benefit. This means that an adult couple\u2014say an 18-year-old who may have a relationship with their parents but live outside of the house; and, say, this person is someone who is battling a skin condition or a congenital disorder or has cancer or has depression\u2014would still be having to rely on a single income when it comes to the rate that they receive. It beggars belief to me why a person with a psychological or psychiatric condition would be put in that situation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006669\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen the question I had was at what rate would the partner or spouse of A, under new section 23C, be receiving? Would that partner receive half the couple rate, or would they be entitled to a single person\u2019s rate since the partner wouldn\u2019t really be eligible for a benefit altogether? If they\u2019re eligible for either half the couple\u2019s rate, the partner of A, that\u2019s a lower amount than a single rate. Half a couple\u2019s rate is less than a single amount. I\u2019m really interested because new section 23C, and some other subsequent lines, specifically talk about A in relation to the partners, and I would like the Minister to put on the record as to whether it is the intention that the partner of A would have to survive, if they are on income support, on half the couple\u2019s rate or whether they would at least receive the single\u2019s rate if their partner A is not eligible for a benefit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESubsequent to that, the way that new section 23C is worded would lead me to believe that you could then end up having circumstances in which people would be having to not disclose who their partner is to Work and Income in order for, potentially, the partner of A to receive the full rate\u2014if it is the case that the way that new section 23C is worded means that the spouse or partner\u2014and, again, I\u2019m referring to lines 30 to 35\u2014would only receive half the couple\u2019s rate. I hope the Minister is following what I\u2019m intending to sort of probe here, because\u2014and I say this from experience at the front lines\u2014if you force a couple to live on half a couple\u2019s rate, they will be more prone to try and not disclose that relationship to Work and Income. It\u2019s not just hypothetical; it\u2019s just what happens in reality. This is not a decision that is taken lightly by those young people. Often it is a means of survival, particularly since the parental income threshold has been set at such a low income.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo I would like clarification on whether the partner of A who does not meet the parental income requirement would receive the single or half the couple\u2019s rate. I\u2019m also interested to get the reflection of the Minister as to whether the way that lines 30 to 35 are worded under new section 23C would lead to, potentially, more people not disclosing their relationship status to Work and Income.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022c65cd07fd3a782c191441d0fe58daa59\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006672\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c65cd07fd3a782c191441d0fe58daa59\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:45)\u003C/span\u003E: This has been through a select committee process, and I accept there are parties in the Chamber who don\u2019t agree with the fact that it\u2019s the policy intent of the bill for 18- and 19-year-olds to be in employment, education, or training and that there is a parental income test. I\u2019ve explained why it\u2019s been set at the level it is. For those parents above that, the expectation is that parents support their children. I think we could have that conversation for hours. We\u2019re not going to get over the difference in opinion. Obviously, when anyone falsely provides information to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), MSD takes that seriously\u2014as they should. Fraud in the MSD system is\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dc3a57187afa86cc08b8900d222e7298\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003EAgainst the law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cae8934f57f8508328277b7b3f7a516a\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014against the law, and I wouldn\u2019t hope that anyone in this Chamber is encouraging that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f0d31505882949b1a768aad60863fba9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022155c99b7e599a8aa04e6294fc12b115f\u0022\u003EJoseph Mooney\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022e28d43db465e91dd1942e33d09ee5e7d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e28d43db465e91dd1942e33d09ee5e7d\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:46)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019m hoping that the Government members are taking a call because, as members of the legislature, it is our role to hold the Government accountable. Simply what we\u2019re doing here at committee stage is holding the Minister and the Government accountable for the bills that are being put through this committee. I would challenge the Minister by saying it is not a matter of difference in opinion; it is whether what we\u2019re looking at here addresses the issue that we\u2019re seeing, and in good faith, whether the Minister and the Government are doing their best to benefit the people of Aotearoa New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006677\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOn that, I just want to check with the Minister. One of my questions is still outstanding, which is around whether the Minister has sought any advice on alignment with our international obligations or advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Further to that, I want to ask if the Minister has received any advice herself from Whaikaha on that particular issue. Also, I want to have clarified my question around student allowance and whether there was any consultation, not with the parental income requirement as it exists currently when it comes to student allowance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, moving on to new sections 23B and 23C, my question here is: what is the Ministry of Social Development\u2019s (MSD\u2019s) process when we\u2019re looking at determining whether the parental income requirement has been met or not? Now, in the regulatory impact statement, page 3, it does state that that will be cost to MSD for implementing and administering the parental assistance test (PAT). \u201CWhile funding for these costs were provided through Budget 2025, there may be some additional costs due to changes to the policy since May 2025.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006679\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoting that in the Budget urgency this year, we had the Social Security (Modernisation) Amendment Bill, which allows for the use of AI, can I check with the Minister whether AI would be used with automated decisions? I\u2019m seeing the shaking of the head from the Minister. I\u2019m assuming that it is not going to be the case, and I\u2019m going to take the Minister\u2019s word that that means that AI will not be used in any way, shape, or form when looking at parental income requirement for jobseeker support for 18- and 19-year-olds. I just want to see that clarification.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006680\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I want to move on to new section 23D(1) around definitions. I want to specifically focus on the definition for \u201Cparental income\u201D. This is on page 7, line 31. This particular term and the term \u201Cincome\u201D is \u201Cwithin the meaning given to that term by Part\u00A02 of Schedule 3\u201D\u2014presumably the Social Security Act. I had a look at the Social Security Act. There are two possible definitions here. One is money received and interest acquired, but it does not include interest in capital. In that case then, for, let\u2019s say, parents of children that are 18- or 19-year-olds where the parents\u2019 sole income is through capital gains, would that mean that then they, actually, don\u2019t fall below the interest requirement, because they don\u2019t technically earn any income in the definition of \u201Cincome\u201D? That\u2019s my first question when it comes to the definition of \u201Cincome\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy second question regarding the definition of \u201Cincome\u201D is: when we were looking at one of the definitions under Part 2 of Schedule 3, \u201Cmoney received\u201D and \u201Cinterest acquired\u201D, does the interest in that sense also include interest as a beneficiary of a family trust? If a parent\u2019s sole income is as the beneficiary of a family trust or through a family business, would that be considered income under the definition of income for parental income? Those are my two additional questions for parental income.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022cbf2d17e9bb0e09b794be1722b536e62\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006682\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cbf2d17e9bb0e09b794be1722b536e62\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:50)\u003C/span\u003E: There\u2019s no change to the definition of income as to the rest of the Social Security Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u0022f9157de46483c7e9e8a97fea8303e139\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006683\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f9157de46483c7e9e8a97fea8303e139\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (17:50)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you so much. I\u2019m mindful that my colleague may have questions on new sections 23D and 23E, but I\u2019ve got questions on new section 23F; this is page 11, between lines 5 and onwards. This is the \u201Cparental income requirement: priority for applicable payment determinations\u201D. I have concerns that the Government has tied itself into knots trying to ascertain which parents are responsible to meet the parental income requirement should the natural parents, the biological parents, be separated. If you look at the example provided between lines 25 and 35, does the Minister for Social Development and Employment accept how convoluted the legislation has been created, to the point that, potentially, it could be really impossible to implement?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006684\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI don\u2019t say this lightly considering the recent media articles on the lack of ability of the front line to adequately implement policies, through no fault of their own but through policy decisions. The example that was given on page 11 talks about, for example, two natural parents\u2014\u201CP1\u201D and \u201CP2\u201D. They\u2019re not in a relationship, but \u201CP1 is in a relationship with a \u201Cstep-parent (SP1). P2 is in a relationship with a step-parent (SP2). A is living with P1 and SP1. A is not living with P2 and SP2. MSD may determine whether SP2 is an applicable parent of A only after MSD has determined that SP1 is not an applicable parent of A.\u201D On the following page, it says, \u201CIf A is not living with step-parent, step-parent in relationship with parent with whom A does not have support gap must be considered before step-parent in relationship with parent with whom A has parental support gap\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006685\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EDoes the Minister accept that the way that this example and the lines have been provided does not really take into account the strength of the relationship that, for example, the children may have with stepparents in this situation? Or, for example, even just the fact that some children\u2014well, actually, in this case, adults. I have to remind myself that we\u2019re not talking about children here; we\u2019re talking about full-grown legal adults, who may be living, for example, with a parent and stepparent who are cohabitating, but are actually maybe having a stronger relationship with a parent and stepparent who may not be cohabitating. Why is the cohabitation of a parent and a stepparent treated as any sort of criteria for the purposes of determining who is going to be subjected to the parental income requirement?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006686\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECan she see how this has opened the doors to some pretty messed up interpretations of, say, family structures, familial connections, the relationship between an adult and, say, their stepparents, and also making pretty outdated assumptions on whether cohabitation is directly linked to, for example, the health of a relationship or the ability for parents or stepparents to provide support? A lot of healthy parental relations may choose not to cohabitate with each other, sometimes because those people may have other sorts of familial responsibilities; they may just be facing health issues or work issues that require them to commute to other places that may make cohabitation just not practically possible. Does she accept that this sort of cohabitation component between P1 and SP1 and P2 and SP2 opens the door to pretty discretionary decision-making based on some assumptions that I think could be pretty outdated?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006687\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy question is: what are the assumptions that has led to the\u2014and again, this is not a difference of opinion; it\u2019s me trying to elucidate information from the Minister, so I just want to request that she does not just fob off a question by claiming that this is a difference of opinion. I am genuinely trying to ascertain what are the assumptions that went behind\u2014from the Minister, not officials\u2014to agree to a definition where, potentially, the cohabitation between a parent and a stepparent may be used as a determining factor for who will be tested when it comes to their incomes, which could, therefore, affect a cancer patient or someone with a psychological or psychiatric condition from being eligible to income support.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u002242fe01a9eb088a8593dbbd46bb6becca\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006688\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002242fe01a9eb088a8593dbbd46bb6becca\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:55)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s just purely reflecting modern day families, and they are very different from what they used to be. There\u2019s a range of different scenarios and parents that will be considered in terms of both the parental support gap as well as the parental income test.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006689\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022101a60faec06bf81b7233375492f0d75\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The committee will resume at 7 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006690\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterItalicsCentred\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 5.55 p.m. to 7 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006691\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022633bac896bd0b8836da20bcd5b38530e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Good evening, members. I hope you dined well. The committee is resumed on the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill. Before the committee suspended for the break, we were debating Part 1. The question, again, is that Part 1 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u0022be48ac7d9dd07cb5966bb7fa6d168f54\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006692\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022be48ac7d9dd07cb5966bb7fa6d168f54\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (19:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you so much, Mr Chair. I appreciate that members want to take a call, but there\u2019s quite a lot of pages in Part 1. Just starting off with something in the new material in new section 23D, inserted into the Social Security Act by clause 5\u2014can the Minister outline what is the net parental income outlined on page 8, between lines 10 and 20? I know she outlined what the gross parental income is, but is she able to outline what the net income is? And I wonder if there\u2019s any sort of, I don\u2019t know, supplement that MPs or Ministers get that maybe is comparable to the net amount.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006693\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen on new section 23I, but I know that maybe my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan will come to ask about some of previous sections\u2014this is page 14. I am particularly interested in between lines 10 and 35-ish, so this is maybe line 33: \u201CJobseeker support: parental income requirement: relationship determinations\u201D. Now, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) here will now basically start capturing parents who may both be working into the kind of people who MSD has the ability to prod into the kind of relationship that they are in. Normally, MSD would, for the purposes of determining whether a beneficiary is single or receiving a single couple\u2019s rate, be able to determine whether they\u2019re in a relationship in the nature of marriage. That means that MSD may ask intrusive questions. Almost a decade ago, for example, MSD was subject to a Privacy Commissioner investigation into how they investigated these relationship types, which I was part of helping trigger at the time in my previous job. It\u2019s an area that I am familiar with quite intimately, having sat in relationship investigation meetings. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006694\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy question is: how many parents will be captured under new section 23I? These are parents who MSD will be able to determine whether they\u2019re single or not. There\u2019s a specific definition here for whether they\u2019re single or not, and this is around line 15, which is \u201C(a) is living apart from that parent\u2019s spouse or partner; and (b) is not in a de facto relationship\u201D. I wanted to ask the Minister, as well, about what definition of \u201Ca de facto relationship\u201D MSD will be using\u2014for example, I know that MSD and other parts of the system use \u201Ca relationship in the nature of marriage\u201D as the basis of determining a relationship between two individuals for the purposes of benefit eligibility. Here I\u2019m seeing being in a de facto relationship and, also, cohabitation as a component of it. Will MSD be using the criteria that they use to determine whether someone is in a relationship in the nature of marriage when determining whether a parent is? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006695\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnd can parents, when determining whether they\u2019re single or not, be subjected to welfare fraud investigations or integrity interventions by MSD; if so, has MSD made any calculations on the level of additional resources the integrity unit may need to develop now that a bunch of additional parents who may both be in work could be subjected to prodding by MSD on whether they\u2019re single or otherwise? And what kind of level of resources or additional staffing resources will MSD require to start now assessing working parents\u2019 relationship status?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006696\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI raise this as a matter of seriousness, right\u2014the Privacy Commissioner, when they investigated MSD last time, found that MSD had the power even at the time to require, for example, intimate conversations between parents, and that their information-gathering powers compared to the likes of the Police and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service. I don\u2019t say this lightly; it was found by the Privacy Commissioner. I am concerned that some of these parents could be subjected to really intrusive welfare fraud investigations just on the basis of their relationship status.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006697\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAgain, I could see that, perhaps, as a matter of survival and for the determining of the parental income threshold, parents may\u2014take a solo mum who has just started being in a relationship and who has an 18-year-old. She probably wouldn\u2019t want the income of that person who she just started being in a relationship with to count towards whether her son, who may have cancer or may be facing a psychological or psychiatric condition, has his benefit cut. That is why I would like the Minister\u2019s engagement on how this will be defined relationship-wise compared to other parts of the welfare system; resources; and how many parents this captures, according to her estimates\u2014and I have other questions on this matter. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022092459aca753ab851e98c04595dc57b9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006698\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022092459aca753ab851e98c04595dc57b9\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (19:05)\u003C/span\u003E: As I\u2019ve referred to with other aspects of the bill, it\u2019s not changing any of the significant definitions in the Social Security Act. It was actually the member himself who referred to the fact that he thought that more people would attempt to be fraudulent in this system. I actually disagree with that decision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u00222cb1ab67b082188cdfdbfa901369b471\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006699\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222cb1ab67b082188cdfdbfa901369b471\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (19:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you so much, Mr Chair. I just want to challenge those comments a little bit, not because I think the Minister for Social Development and Employment is lying by any means but because, I think, she may just not be interpreting. There is a new definition here in determining whether someone is single. That is the literal new definition. There is a change. Previously, in the welfare system, if you have two working parents in full-time work, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) actually had no business in their relationship status.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006700\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis specific new section 23I, inserted into the principal Act by clause 5, allows MSD to prod two parents in full-time work or two people in full-time work, who may not be receiving a benefit\u2014it allows MSD to basically prod and ask about their intimate lives. This is a substantive change in how MSD operates and who MSD is giving themselves power to inquire about their intimate lives and their relationships. As I just mentioned earlier, MSD does not have the ability nor reason to ask two full-time people whether they\u2019re in a relationship or otherwise. This allows MSD to do exactly that. Therefore, I would like to know how many parents and people are captured in here. If the Minister would like to engage at least on the substance of my questions, which are not in bad faith, I would deeply appreciate it, because I don\u2019t want to keep litigating this specific new section 23I, but she didn\u2019t engage with the substance of my question. She also didn\u2019t engage with whether additional resources would be required, and, again, I\u2019m seeking the Minister\u2019s engagement on this. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006701\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, I would like to know whether, if she genuinely thinks that nothing is changing in the system, can she confirm, then\u2014because if she thinks nothing is changing, she is basically telling me that these full-time working parents could be subjected to integrity interventions. Whether she agrees with me or otherwise that some parents may feel like they don\u2019t have to be fully upfront with their relationship status is beside the point. I am asking whether two full-time working people who do not receive a benefit could be subjected to integrity interventions by MSD on the basis of their relationship status.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006702\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, my last question would be what impact this will have on, say, a disabled parent who may be trying to find connection or a solid parent who, for example, may have escaped family violence and may be entering a new relationship. Again, the reason why I\u2019m not trifling with these questions is that when I worked at Auckland Action Against Poverty, one of the news stories we did when I first got in was that a woman had her benefit cut because she was deemed to be in a relationship with someone she went on a Tinder date with. That is the level in which MSD sometimes chooses to cut people\u2019s benefits when they deem someone to be in a relationship. And so, when I have had real-life examples that I\u2019ve seen at the front lines that have hit the media, that have seen a person who goes on two dates have their benefit cut, how can she give me confidence that this will not happen between two working people who just simply go on a few dates? Because if she\u2019s saying, \u201CHey, look, the relationship definitions haven\u2019t changed on how we apply them to beneficiaries\u201D, she cannot give me a guarantee that this won\u2019t happen again to two working people. And what is the business of MSD in determining two full-time working people\u2019s relationship status? Why should that ever be MSD\u2019s business? I think that maybe she would like to give some reassurance to the parents as to whether the provisions in new section 23I actually allow for integrity interventions into working families. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006703\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAgain, I just really challenge the idea that nothing here is changing. This wouldn\u2019t be the first time that I raise this important issue and she says, \u201CNo, nothing is changing\u201D or \u201CNo, nothing has happened\u201D and it turns out things have happened. If some engagement happened from the Minister on new section 23I I would be happy to move on, but I think this is one of the most substantive changes in clause 5 in relationship to the powers that MSD is giving itself to investigate\u2014potentially\u2014full-time working people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022064ae842ad230b8f90df66a6ffeddc79\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006704\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022064ae842ad230b8f90df66a6ffeddc79\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (19:09)\u003C/span\u003E: The only reason this is relevant here is if there\u2019s an 18- or 19-year-old who is not in employment, training, or education and is applying for the parental income test or support gap. That is the only reason a young person would be seeking\u2014or that the Ministry of Social Development would be seeking\u2014information or assurance from them: looking at their parents\u2019 income requirements, and also if there is a support gap. As I said before, it\u2019s similar to student allowance, where other parts of the system consider what the parents\u2019 income is to see if their student\u2014at that stage, up to the age of 24, under 25\u2014is eligible. It\u2019s really not that much different.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006705\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223a6354f409c56f95c36f69979510cc4a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2014but we\u2019ll be needing to move on from this particular point. It\u2019s been well exhausted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00222fc2392d52753514e6cf61a14f9c6959\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006706\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222fc2392d52753514e6cf61a14f9c6959\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:10)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair, but I do want to seek your clarification first. We\u2019ve been trying, since the start of this debate, to actually ask genuine questions of the Minister, and seek the Minister\u2019s engagement. The Minister\u2019s responses thus far has been: \u201Cit\u2019s the same as student allowance; it\u2019s the same as before; nothing has changed; nothing to see here\u201D. It\u2019s very hard to, from a parliamentary perspective, seek engagement from the Minister so that we can have our own record on some of these, including the answer to my previous question to the Minister around the definition of income, which was simply: \u201Cnothing has changed; nothing to see here\u201D. I\u2019ve asked specific questions which have not had the Minister\u2019s engagement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006707\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn saying that, I will move on to clause 5, which inserts new clause 23G. Something is introduced here, specifically, with the parental support gap. The question I have here is: if in clause 23G(1), we\u2019re saying that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) is determining if \u201CMSD is satisfied that it is not reasonable in the circumstances for A to rely on P for financial support.\u201D, in the event of a parent gap. We\u2019re seeing in clause 23G(2), two circumstances where MSD must be satisfied. However, in 23G(3), we\u2019re seeing that \u201CSubsection (2) does not limit MSD being satisfied\u201D, which means that the two requirements under clause 23G(2) are not exhaustive. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis means that MSD can have additional considerations in determining whether there is an ability test when it comes to parental support gap. My question to the Minister is: those additional considerations, or additional reasons, that MSD would be able to consider under clause 23G(3), are they regulations? Are they guidelines? Is it secondary legislation? If they are not regulations or secondary legislation, what are the checks and balances that are involved to ensure that MSD isn\u2019t going to be able to\u2014in the example that my colleague Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March gave\u2014just make up criteria on the spot? What are the checks and balances, and what is the consistency test when it comes to parental support gap, to ensure that new criteria under clause 23G(3) are being compliant with the expectations of MSD?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u0022af5a8583679ee9ea74edf36a082e45fb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006709\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022af5a8583679ee9ea74edf36a082e45fb\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (19:14)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve got a question on clause 6, Section 63 amended, in relation to my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s amendment, but again, I\u2019m still seeking the Minister\u2019s engagement on how many intermediate interventions\u2014I\u2019m happy to move on, but\u2014I don\u2019t even have to like the answers. She\u2019s just refusing to engage in the debate, which makes this debate a little bit pointless.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m looking for the Minister\u2019s engagement on that, and on the Amendment Paper\u2014this is the one tabled at 15.20.01. It seeks to change clause 6, section 63(2A): \u201Cdelete \u2018only if P meets the parental income requirement\u2019 \u201D. The reason why I wanted to have the Minister\u2019s engagement on this is that clause 6 adds a provision in which an emergency benefit could be granted on the discretionary ground of hardship. If the person\u2019s on hardship, why would they be subjected to the parental income test? You already identified that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has the ability to grant someone a benefit, discretionarily, on the grounds of hardship\u2014why would one add a process that requires a person to not just test the parents\u2019 incomes, but also potentially test the support gap that this part has sort of included in that? For example, when I was on the phone lines, you would be able to go and seek an appointment on the day for someone who was experiencing hardship, and on that very same day, have an emergency benefit granted\u2014on the grounds of, say, hardship, or other issues that may arise. This provision basically prevents, in my view, MSD from adequately being able to provide that support to an 18- or 19-year-old, by adding another layer of requirements to the emergency benefits. That is at least how I understand it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006711\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHowever, and when I say \u201Chowever\u201D, this is the line from clause 6, in how the language begins\u2014adding another layer, another barrier, basically\u2014my question is: if MSD already has the discretionary ability to grant someone a benefit on the grounds of hardship, why would they still want to test the parental income? What potential processing delays could arise from this additional requirement that clause 6 adds for the purposes of someone\u2019s eligibility for the emergency benefit? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006712\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPerhaps, one way the Minister could give us some assurances of how much this may add additional barriers, or otherwise, could be useful. What are the usual processing times for emergency benefits? Are we expecting those median processing times to change as a result of this provision? How many people, for example, have received\u2014who are of the ages of 18 to 19 on the emergency benefit\u2014even if you\u2019ve just got new data points, the past five years, the past year, or whatever. That may actually give us a bit of a picture as to how many people would this likely capture? We\u2019ve got a provision for emergency benefits, specifically for 18- and 19-year-olds. I don\u2019t think you, Mr Chair, or myself, or anyone here in this House, would be able to ascertain out of a magic hat how many people this likely will capture. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006713\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019d like to know from the Minister if she sought to add this requirement in the emergency benefit on the grounds of hardship, does she know how many people could be subjected to it? If not, what level of analysis and robust work did she do to justify adding this on the emergency benefit? Part of the reason is that some people on the emergency benefit may then go and apply to a normal jobseeker benefit, eventually. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006714\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI could see the rationale, even if I disagree with the Minister\u2019s intention of the bill, that at the point at which you apply for the jobseeker benefit, the parental income test may come into effect. I don\u2019t understand why you would want to add it at a point in which MSD would normally grant someone a discretionary benefit under grounds of hardship. There is a purpose and principle of the Social Security Act already, that the role of MSD is to effectively alleviate hardship. If you add an additional barrier for benefits on the grounds of hardship, it could end up potentially resulting in decisions that are inconsistent with the purpose and principles of the main Act, which to me seems really problematic. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006715\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy final question is whether she thinks there could be any incidents here where MSD could be unintentionally making decisions that go against the purpose and the principles of the main Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u00225e8dc760b249ad18a851a0567978330a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006716\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225e8dc760b249ad18a851a0567978330a\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (19:19)\u003C/span\u003E: I accept that members of the Opposition don\u2019t like the policy position that the Government is introducing in this bill, which is to say 18- and 19-year-olds are the responsibility of their parents first. If their parents, through either an income test or support gap, are unable to provide that support, then the State will.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006717\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fd95f93195a4fa02eab4405bba4694ef\u0022\u003ERicardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u003C/span\u003E: Would you like to engage with the question?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006718\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cd076e6e24c17d0638863087480067b4\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: But the State is not the first\u2014I\u2019m answering your question, which relates to the emergency benefit. They will not be eligible unless there is an income gap.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022 data-id=\u00222b3bf5aafc1233c85acadaeb03f132a6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006719\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222b3bf5aafc1233c85acadaeb03f132a6\u0022\u003ESUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip\u2014National) (19:19)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006720\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002213e5eb07f0a9b4bf0d5bcb7f8450cb83\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m not going to take a closure motion, but we are in that direction. Members standing up and taking five-minute calls and covering a lot of area is probably not helpful to their cause. We\u2019re at the stage where trying to change the policy is unlikely, so clarification is probably more likely to be fruitful at this stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022c79195d0388d77fb39f07ee44344859e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c79195d0388d77fb39f07ee44344859e\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:20)\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to seek your clarification. For example, the question I asked on new section 23G was specifically seeking elucidation from the Minister on whether something is secondary legislation or it\u2019s a regulation and how the guidelines are going to work. The Minister has not engaged, and the Minister has consistently gone back to making it sound like we\u2019re challenging on the basis of policy. That question was not a challenge on policy; it was seeking clarification. I just want to check with the Chair if we can continue asking those questions without the Minister\u2019s engagement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006722\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220566987c4fb5d66f2dd7d5e08d3cf97e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: That in itself might have been a good question, rather than\u2014it probably didn\u2019t need quite the padding around it that it got.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022 data-id=\u002298a4adaa0de07b4f6e1c0691248a84c1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002298a4adaa0de07b4f6e1c0691248a84c1\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert) (19:21)\u003C/span\u003E: I just wanted to bring up a question which I would have brought up in the second part, but it relates to the issue around deprivation, which is around new section 16A in the cut-out for\u2014sorry, I\u2019ll just give you the section number. It\u2019s actually part of clause 12.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006724\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat I want to know is: there\u2019s the supplementary analysis report, which talks about the threshold for an income supplement, which is the second part of this legislation, which we\u2019ll get to shortly. There\u2019s a paragraph there with regard to families with children. It says that families with children are disproportionately impacted by this proposal\u2014that being the issue about accommodation support\u2014but it says, at paragraph 61, \u201CThere is a risk that this proposal combined with other budget initiatives (such as the changes to \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EJobseeker Support - tightening eligibility for 18- and 19-year-olds\u003C/span\u003E) could increase the likelihood of financial stress for families supporting their adult children.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006725\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve never really had an answer to my very early question about why we haven\u2019t looked at the number of children in a family or the actual financial pressures instead of taking\u2014I\u2019ve got no answers whatsoever on that. What I want to know is: what do you make of that? You\u2019re doing two things at once impacting on the same families, and there\u2019s a warning here that it\u2019s going to impact on them, and yet we\u2019ve got paragraphs here which are all about, as you say, cutting away any other form of support to those families, such as emergency benefits, etc. Could you answer that question, very genuinely\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006726\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002263ffc12c2b4a62d643f559fd2cbd5cbd\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Not me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006727\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a4b75446e58cff9c12c792d737d4252a\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry. Could the Minister for Social Development and Employment answer that question, very genuinely, and I\u2019ll leave her alone on this one?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022d221801bd2abc8f50a8e60ebd53e85d1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006728\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d221801bd2abc8f50a8e60ebd53e85d1\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (19:23)\u003C/span\u003E: As I said, we have set an income level. I\u2019ve explained that multiple times\u2014why that\u2019s been set. At the heart of this is, actually, that we want young people in training, education, or employment, right? We don\u2019t want them to go on to welfare and get stuck there, because we know what happens in terms of their long-term life outcomes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006729\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI accept that other people in the House don\u2019t agree with the policy position. I\u2019ve explained why we set the income level at the level we have. The best way to avoid this is for parents to support their young people in their expectation to have them in education, training, or a job.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00222ee414ef8e7167ae1b1def6b34f1decd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006730\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222ee414ef8e7167ae1b1def6b34f1decd\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:23)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I have just a short question. This is clause 7(3). This is inserting new section 113(3A). This is around when a beneficiary must notify changes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006731\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, new subsection (3A) states that, in relation to a relevant benefit, the changes include paragraphs (a) to (e). My assumption is the term \u201Cinclude\u201D means that, again, paragraphs (a) to (e) are not exhaustive; there might be other criteria that are being looked at as well. Can I check, in those cases, how would, if there are other criteria\u2014OK, I guess my first question is: is that list exhaustive?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006732\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf that list is exhaustive, that\u2019s clear; beneficiaries know exactly that these are the five circumstances when they need to notify a change of circumstances. If it is not exhaustive, how would beneficiaries then know what additional requirements there would be for notification, and would that be published by the Ministry of Social Development\u2014what is going to be required\u2014in a way that is through either the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EGazette\u003C/span\u003E or publicly on the website?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022f4713984b42120d0dbf31944b118abff\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006733\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f4713984b42120d0dbf31944b118abff\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (19:25)\u003C/span\u003E: Again, \u201Cchange of circumstance\u201D is a fairly common process for the Ministry of Social Development. It includes those ones there but is not restricted to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u00222023a352db3767b33a4872064cee271a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006734\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222023a352db3767b33a4872064cee271a\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (19:25)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you so much, Mr Chair. I\u2019ve got a question on clause 8, on page 18, but also just wanted to emphasise that my questions on parents are not to challenge the policy; it\u2019s actually just to understand how many people are affected and how this will actually apply.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006735\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELook, the Minister for Social Development and Employment has made it clear that she won\u2019t accept any changes, but I guess I just want to sort of test the Minister\u2019s understanding, in clarification for the public, on, for example, whether the provisions under new section 23I\u2014for example, how many people that will capture and how it will operate in practice?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006736\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs for clause 8, this is new section 310ZB, \u201CNotice of review and seeking required information\u201D. There\u2019s a notice of review here that requires the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to, as soon as practicable and before the 21\u003Csup\u003Est\u003C/sup\u003E working day after the child exclusion date, give a notice talking about the relevant benefit, the appropriate rate of the benefit. Then it talks about the required information that MSD needs to ask the person.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006737\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, following both the regulatory impact statement (RIS) from the bill, which identified that one of the biggest risks to this bill was actually the ability for MSD to keep up with the broader legislative agenda, and particularly the fact that we have seen news stories come out as of this week that, in fact, MSD hasn\u2019t been able to keep up with this Government\u2019s legislative agenda, suspending benefits due to persistent delays due to the fact that the front line hasn\u2019t kept up, can the Minister assure me\u2014well, (a) is she confident that MSD has the front-line capacity to operationalise the provisions in new section 310ZB? Again, it\u2019s not about whether I want policy changes. I am just wanting to know whether she thinks the front line has capacity. Has she, since MSD has clearly been unable to keep up with the pace of the legislative agenda that the Government has implemented, sought additional assurances or briefings on the operationalisation of this provision or others?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006738\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf not, when the RIS identified that provisions that add additional requirements to MSD could face barriers in implementation due to other changes, does she think it is responsible, and therefore does she think that it could well be the case that some beneficiaries actually do not receive, in 20 working days, the notice around the child exclusion date? If the Minister sees that happening, could she clarify to members of the public watching or for the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E record what recourse is available should MSD not fulfil the obligations under new section 310ZB? The Minister will note that I am not proposing changes to any policy but simply elucidating information.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022f186ace8f807303fa3152a05794f3e59\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006739\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f186ace8f807303fa3152a05794f3e59\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (19:28)\u003C/span\u003E: Any time there is a change of legislation, it\u2019s up to the agency to operationalise it. I\u2019m confident that they know very clearly what my expectations are in them doing it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022 data-id=\u002269109ff657fab65d1080488e97d2c4e8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006740\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002269109ff657fab65d1080488e97d2c4e8\u0022\u003EDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National\u2014Mt Roskill) (19:28)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006741\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002224b2abb241ec4df16363df638227107c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019re nearly there, members. I\u2019ll give you one more question each. I suggest you utilise them very well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u0022e7955de6f11911987af72997cb3ca357\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006742\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e7955de6f11911987af72997cb3ca357\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (19:28)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, and I\u2019d love to chat with any member here on, like, why this welfare policy particularly matters. When the Minister for Social Development and Employment talked about how she expects the ministry to just execute her policies, does she accept\u2014and I speak about, for example, new sections 310ZL, 310ZN, and other provisions under clause 8, including, for example, 310ZQ, and I\u2019ll focus a little bit on that one specifically. There\u2019s one side of saying, \u201CI expect the Ministry of Social Development to do what I say.\u201D Then there\u2019s the other one that is like, does the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) actually have the resources and is it actually equipped to do what she says? Just whipping MSD harder does not make these clauses just magically come into effect. All I\u2019m asking, despite our disagreements on policy, is: has she sought reassurances from MSD that these provisions could actually take place? It adds additional reviews by a benefit review committee, appeals to appeal authority, and appeals to court.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006743\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, would she be able to outline for people\u2014again, not a policy disagreement\u2014has she actually checked whether adding additional things that could be reviewed would be workable in practice, considering the substantive delays that people already experience in reviews by benefit review committees or appeal authorities? And will she promise, if there are substantial challenges to this policy via the appeal processes through the courts, that she will not legislate at pace to prevent these resources from being accessed in the way that, for example, she did to clamp down on people having their debts wiped by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) after accessing supplementary assistance while they were waiting in ACC payments? Because, for new section 310ZQ inserted by clause 8 to actually be useful to everyday people, people have to have confidence that the appeal processes will be left alone and will be adequately resourced.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006744\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFor the Chair\u2019s elucidation, normally, review committees are made up of two MSD individuals and one supposedly independent community person, which I would challenge, but it maybe would be useful for the Minister to tell me if she expects to increase that number of MSD staffers that can participate in the benefit review committee if she\u2019s adding another decision that can be challenged, because, first of all, some of the families that I worked with have waited months to have their meeting and their appointment with the benefits review committee to challenge a decision. In this case, what I am concerned about is that if they\u2019re waiting for months to challenge a decision, it\u2019s months that an 18- or 19-year-old would have gone without income support, right? So it\u2019s not just that this is sort of a frivolity of trying to grab some random clause; we\u2019re talking about the fact that she\u2019s added an appeal clause without elucidating to us how long an 18- or 19-year-old would be expected to wait without income while this happens, or even giving us assurances that she actually checked with MSD if they are at capacity to operationalise this at pace, rather than just saying, \u201CI expect them to do it no matter what.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006745\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think, to the earlier comments, all we\u2019re trying to do is just seek elucidation from the Minister. I\u2019m not even trying to convince her to get rid of any of these clauses at this point. All I\u2019m trying to do is to debate and seek confidence that the Minister actually understands what she\u2019s doing, especially when we had, this week, incidents in which, clearly, the Minister was found to be inconsistent saying no to questions about benefits being suspended when it turns out they were.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u00220510acef5d530aa55fec798db59fed3c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006746\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220510acef5d530aa55fec798db59fed3c\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (19:33)\u003C/span\u003E: As I said before, anytime there is a change of legislation that\u2019s planned, the Ministry of Social Development prepares for that and prepares to operationalise that. As I said, I am confident that they have planned appropriately and can deliver it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u002262474e9b903cbd56e8600630ced19827\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006747\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002262474e9b903cbd56e8600630ced19827\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:33)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. My one will be short. I want to thank the Minister for Social Development and Employment for actually responding to the first part of my question. But my second part of that question on new section 3A is: if there are additional criteria that are required for the beneficiary to notify change of circumstance, would the beneficiary be notified of what those changes are or would that be, in some ways, sprung on the beneficiary afterwards, and then, where they get penalised for not declaring any change of circumstance that isn\u2019t immediately, I guess, clear or transparent to the beneficiary. So that was my first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006748\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019m going to move on to a further question. I think this might be clause 8, new Subpart 3B, new section 310ZF. There are other clauses that are similar when it comes to the cancellation. I do want to check that if the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has not received, I understand the 8 weeks\u2019 notice\u2014that\u2019s fair enough when it comes to child exclusion date. Will MSD, in those circumstances\u2014and this might be more of a general question around the operations of MSD\u2014make multiple attempts to contact whoever they are seeking information from prior to those eight weeks? So rather than just a one-off, will they try it multiple times\u2014for example, at week four, at week seven, saying, \u201CIf you don\u2019t give it to us by next week, we are going to continue with the cancellation.\u201D? Those are my two questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u00222e668ee7ca1769becca23c7c00602402\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006749\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222e668ee7ca1769becca23c7c00602402\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (19:35)\u003C/span\u003E: There\u2019s already a process around the way that the Ministry of Social Development communicate with clients. Generally, there\u2019s a notification through MyMSD as well as emails. There are usually multiple emails that are sent to the client.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022440a125e85954bae9f5d470b7551e4f3\u0022 data-id=\u0022c7daf2a3a05faaa778e1e3ae65b1c448\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006750\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022440a125e85954bae9f5d470b7551e4f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c7daf2a3a05faaa778e1e3ae65b1c448\u0022\u003ECAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (19:35)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006751\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006752\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006753\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006754\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 39\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006755\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006756\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006757\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cf168d060bc8ed0e2254a95e95031884\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting new section 23A(2)(ba) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006758\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006759\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 39\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006760\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006761\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006762\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006763\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006764\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022028989eb9c51482e47ea2be0d9d5a5bb\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting new section 23AA be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006765\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006766\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 39\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006767\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006768\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006769\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006770\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006771\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223e36f5a1bad82019fb3bef8868825607\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Willow-Jean Prime\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section 23A(2), inserting new paragraph (d) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006772\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Hon Willow-Jean Prime\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section 23A(2), inserting new paragraph (d) to (h) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006773\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Hon Willow-Jean Prime\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section 23D, replacing the definition of \u201Cparental income limit\u201D is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006774\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting new section 23D(3) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006775\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006776\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 39\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006777\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006778\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006779\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006780\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006781\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b632d56af13cef305f439a5038cf192a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 5 replacing new section 23F be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006782\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006783\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 39\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006784\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006785\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006786\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006787\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006788\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227f6ea9be53ff0e1ee34d99d0bfd98dd3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 5 new section 23G inserting new subsections (1A) to (1D) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006789\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006790\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 39\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006791\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006792\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006793\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006794\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006795\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002230a3cc37227b1e25af5c3f93719e90e8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 5 new section 23G inserting new subsections (2)(c) and to (2A) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006797\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 39\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006798\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006799\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006800\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006801\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006802\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224493c0d190802d1322381c2628bdae1d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 5 replacing new section 23I be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006803\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006804\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 39\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006805\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006806\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006807\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006808\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006809\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f87f55597a4a1e0dd9f833de9d3fa411\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 6, new section 63(2A) is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006810\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Hon Willow-Jean Prime\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 113, inserting new subsection (5) to (7) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006811\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8 replacing new section 310W(2) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006812\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006813\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 39\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006815\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006816\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006817\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006818\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a4ff5b7f6c05436df0df62c498551472\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8 new section 310ZB inserting new subsections (1A) to (1D) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006819\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006820\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 39\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006821\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006822\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006823\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006824\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006825\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229692fcaca088fb98e33e23f76a357c38\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8 new section 310ZD inserting new subsections (2A) to (2D) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006826\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006827\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 39\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006828\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006829\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006830\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006832\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022122bb08f356d76c8ddf06f8dc66d210b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8 deleting new section 310ZE(1)(a) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006833\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006834\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 39\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006835\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006836\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006837\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006838\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006839\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Part 1 be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006840\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006841\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006842\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 39\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006843\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006844\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006845\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00221213f78706e1e71f1f5fa5a77981646c\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006846\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022522b66b646ac90558725dcac5eb33f5f\u0022\u003EPart 2 Accommodation supplement: entry threshold percentage for homeowners, and Schedule 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006847\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f60b9ca6e7a5815c483ec8f78f89b86\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to Part 2, the debate on clauses 13 to 15\u2014\u201CAccommodation supplement: entry threshold percentage for homeowners\u201D\u2014and Schedule 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u00222965ac986f6f0e438fd92adf52c3d4ba\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006848\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222965ac986f6f0e438fd92adf52c3d4ba\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (19:47)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you so much, Mr Chair. While Part 2, particularly clause 15, may be brief in terms of pages, I believe that it impacts quite a large number of people, so it is worthy of debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006849\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFirst of all, as of today, is the Minster for Social Development and Employment aware of how many people are captured under the new thresholds that was lifted to 40\u00A0percent of the base rate? Since the bill was introduced, I believe that most families that were affected\u2014particularly by clause 15, in Schedule 4, Part 7, clause 4 and then clause 6\u2014I think, were families with children. Is that correct, and is it still the case?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006850\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIs it still the case that most of the families\u2014families that are working families\u2014will see a reduction on the accommodation supplement under this provision? What impact does she think cutting the accommodation supplement by certain amounts\u2014which I\u2019d like to know what the latest estimates are of the weekly reduction on accommodation supplement for low-income homeowners will be. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006851\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnd I wanted to know whether she has also received advice that whatever savings may be produced as part of Part 2, may be offset by those families having to access assistance in other parts of the system in the form of advances, hardship grants, and the likes, because, obviously, this Part 2 also produces a bunch of savings as part of her budget initiatives. Effectively, what Part 2 does is that it, basically, means less people can access the accommodation supplement if they\u2019re homeowners. Normally, you can access the accommodation supplement if you\u2019re spending more than 30 percent of your income on housing costs. In this Part 2, it lifts it to 40\u00A0percent, right? So it means less people are eligible. I would like to know how many people and what the weekly reduction is. I don\u2019t think these are issues around changing the policy, but wanting to get clarity on who exactly this is capturing as off today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006852\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELastly, just talking about the cost, can she confirm to me how much money she thinks she will save with this Part 2, and has she sought any further advice on how much actually will be spent elsewhere as a result of the potential hardship she may put families under?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u00221a253b51104aadac36f3ee0cf55bc764\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006853\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221a253b51104aadac36f3ee0cf55bc764\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (19:50)\u003C/span\u003E: The initial examination of this, or the consideration, estimated that with the entry threshold increasing from 30\u00A0percent to 40\u00A0percent for some homeowners getting their accommodation supplement, it was estimated that there would be 9,300 homeowners impacted. The savings from the accommodation supplement initiative go pretty much to then expand the accommodation supplement boundaries for a whole group of people who are currently not eligible for the accommodation supplement at all. This was a Budget\u00A02025 measure. Then, in Budget 2026, those who get the accommodation supplement get an increase of between $10 and $30 a week. I\u2019m sorry I can\u2019t give you the exact number, because there are multiple levels. The intention of this was to ensure that the accommodation supplement was better targeted. As I said, this allows for a whole group of New Zealanders that\u2014because where you have a town that extends into a rural area, the rural area might previously have been excluded completely, and no one got an accommodation supplement in that area, but housing has been developed there, so with this, it is a switch. The savings from this particular initiative will go to those who will now be eligible because of the boundary change. As I said, in addition to that, there\u2019s been measures in Budget 2026 which increase those getting the accommodation supplement by $10 to $30 a week.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u00224c9f7608cce756eb652777fae5f77e55\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006854\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224c9f7608cce756eb652777fae5f77e55\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (19:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you so much, Minister, for confirming that there are thousands of families that will see a weekly reduction rate to their accommodation supplement. Can she just confirm that those families will be predominantly low-income families who are single homeowners and potentially be having quite high rates of mortgages\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006855\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022557ea3c0d2ae1d9832d6f8f803963a8c\u0022\u003ESuze Redmayne\u003C/span\u003E: Did you actually listen?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002289452b0ed65caf66d0671552311cc8d8\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH\u003C/span\u003E: Low-income families, I asked. She didn\u2019t actually clarify. I appreciate that Suze Redmayne is listening to the debate, but I\u2019d like to clarify whether those 9,000 families are predominantly low-income families and/or people on the benefit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006857\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221f257939dec13a1ebcbb096a624e6f27\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003EWould it be a concern if it was predominantly high income?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006858\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c54e4b50eebed25e7736a7dfca4b071b\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH\u003C/span\u003E: I don\u2019t know why the Government members take issue with who this is affecting. The other question I wanted to check was whether the amount that is being cut of the accommodation supplement from those families\u2014those over 9,000 families\u2014will be directly proportionate to the increase that these new families will see. If I recall correctly in this select committee stage, I think, at the time, some families will see\u2014I think maybe the Minister would like to confirm\u2014a $40 a week reduction on their accommodation supplement, and I don\u2019t believe that the families that will see an increase in the accommodation supplement will see a net increase, potentially, off that. Would the Minister be able to outline whether it is one-to-one comparison? It seems to me that she\u2019s justifying taking from one group of low-income people who may be struggling with their mortgage payments to then give to another struggling group of people. That seems like taking from one struggling group to another. But, again, despite our policy differences, I just would like to confirm the make-up of those families and how many of them are in work or out of work and the sorts of incomes that we\u2019re talking about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006859\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWould she also have any information on the demographic make-up of those 9,300 families? For example, I think in the advice that we received, there was some commentary around M\u0101ori and Pacific family being disproportionately affected by high housing costs. Does she know, actually, how many of them would be M\u0101ori and Pacific families that are covered in that 9,300 families that she spoke about? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006860\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also believe that, in the advice, it was noted that disabled people also disproportionately face higher housing costs, is she aware of how many disabled people who may be first time homeowners and who may be struggling with mortgage payments will see a reduction on their accommodation supplement as a result of these changes? I totally hear that she\u2019s trying to justify it by saying that we\u2019re giving it to a whole group of people, but what I\u2019m wanting to seek engagement on is the impact this has on the people who will see a reduction, right? Independent of whether she thinks other people are benefiting, I\u2019m trying to just seek engagement on who these 9,300 families being impacted are and the demographic breakdown, which I don\u2019t think are unreasonable questions, Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022301bdef9468b3ef88c7ce1f0f88ac50c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006861\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022301bdef9468b3ef88c7ce1f0f88ac50c\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (19:55)\u003C/span\u003E: The first thing is there\u2019s no change in the eligibility to the accommodation supplement. It is provided for low-income households\u2014and working households as well as benefit households. All this is doing is saying that if somebody is eligible, they would then need to contribute slightly more.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006862\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229fbf38da2a133e103fc5ad98d27bb03d\u0022\u003EHon Willow-Jean Prime\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, so a change? That is actually a change.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006863\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022feb7d911e4671e2eb258e2086e9a6c24\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: No, it\u2019s not a change in the overall settings for who is eligible for the accommodation supplement. As I was saying, the accommodation supplement is available for working households and beneficiary households. I don\u2019t have the data in front of me, but I did want to make sure that the member was fully aware that there are exclusions for those on the supported living payment, for those on the New Zealand superannuation, and for those on the veteran\u2019s pension. They are excluded from this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022 data-id=\u0022b26bb550ac37159319cef7fc3cba8813\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006864\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b26bb550ac37159319cef7fc3cba8813\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert) (19:56)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to talk about the supplementary analysis report, and I want to ask some questions about the comments, on page 7, about the policy assumptions underpinning this decision. Those are of concern to me, and I\u2019d like the Minister for Social Development and Employment\u2019s answer to those assumptions and why she decided to continue. The first one is: \u201CThis proposal assumes that affected homeowners may be able to leverage other financial options for meeting their accommodation costs, such as refinancing their mortgage or taking on additional occupants ([i.e.,] renting out a room or \u2026 a boarder).\u201D I\u2019d love to know what the Minister thinks about that, because it then goes on to say, \u201CThere is a risk that this may not be realised. If this assumption is not met, some homeowners may choose to manage their accommodation costs by deciding to sell their home and move into rental accommodation.\u201D That\u2019s an impact. And then it goes on to say, \u201CThe ability of homeowners to manage their accommodation costs will vary depending on their individual circumstances.\u201D It will matter what their interest rates are, and what their council rates, insurance, and mortgage payments are. They are at risk, and it is really worth reminding the Minister about my earlier concern that the two changes together are going to impact on the same group predominantly, which is our poorer families. They\u2019ll be worse off in this circumstance. If you could do address those issues, I\u2019d be grateful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u00225ccf67811496cf25657a15d4b171a384\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006865\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225ccf67811496cf25657a15d4b171a384\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (19:57)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019ve just got a further question on the group\u2019s included\u2014just following up on a comment she made on who she\u2019s excluding. How many people is she aware there are who are disabled on other forms of income support or in work that will still be included? She kind of alluded, \u201CPeople on the supported living payment are not included.\u201D Sure, but that\u2019s not the make-up of the full group of disabled people who exist in this country. Surely she is aware that some disabled people will be included in this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006866\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESecondly, would she be able to clarify exactly how much money she\u2019s saving and whether she received any advice of these savings in engagement on this, and whether she believes these savings may be offset by costs elsewhere in the system? I say this, again, not to trifle but because I know she has received the advice on previous changes to the accommodation supplement that she has made. For example, when she made the changes to the accommodation supplement for people who have boarders, she was advised at the time that these savings could be offset by people needing support elsewhere. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s unreasonable to simply ask: has she sought reassurances that the savings are accurate, the ones that she\u2019ll be producing on Part 2?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006867\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESecondly, I did also want to explore in terms of the design of Part 2. She spoke earlier, and we had a bit of an exchange about the groups that she\u2019s taking from to give to\u2014at any point in the bill did she explore, for example, taking from, say, the likes of entitlements from Government Ministers\u2019 housing subsidies as opposed to low-income homeowners? In terms of the options that she prepared for or she sought initial advice on the bill, I\u2019m interested to know who she explored taking support from to give and expand the accommodation supplement to others? Surely there are other subsidies that people receive more generally that are well off and that do not have to be low-income homeowners, right\u2014including the subsidies that some of us MPs or Ministers receive for houses that we have no debt on. I am just curious to know whether she explored any other options in the design of this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006868\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELastly, I know that she said that she doesn\u2019t have the full demographic breakdown in front of her, but I did want to just check whether she is confident that no families will be unable to actually meet the full cost of their mortgages and will fall behind as a result of this. Again\u2014not to trifle\u2014this is something I am seeing more and more constituents struggling with. Just genuinely keeping up with the rate of mortgages is something that has been canvassed in media articles quite a bit, so whenever I see legislation that reduces the accommodation supplement for people with mortgages, the first thing that comes to me is: \u201CWell, could this risk people losing their home?\u201D\u2014particularly, including families that are, according to select committee advice, low-income families. Can she guarantee that she will do everything that she can to avoid any of these 9,300 families from losing their home as a result of the reduction in the accommodation supplement?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022e34b5237160b030c4e952e51252423c8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006869\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e34b5237160b030c4e952e51252423c8\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (20:00)\u003C/span\u003E: In terms of the breakdown, the information I\u2019ve been provided is that there will be 1,300 M\u0101ori households impacted and 500 Pasifika people. In terms of disabled people, I was just simply making the point\u2014I didn\u2019t want anyone in the Chamber thinking that those on supported living payments were captured by this. One in eight New Zealanders has a disability\u2014many are working, some will be on benefit, some will be on low-incomes, and some will be on high incomes\u2014so, no, I don\u2019t have that figure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006870\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s hard to give an exact figure for the savings of this particular initiative because, as I said, it\u2019s going to fund the accommodation supplement, adjusting area boundaries, which I know the member for Southland is very excited about. He has lobbied very hard to get the boundaries for the accommodation supplement changed, so I know he\u2019s very excited about that. One side of it, which is what we\u2019re talking about here in terms of the entry threshold, is $36 million\u2014as I said, offset by the accommodation supplement now being available to a lot more families than it would have been otherwise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006871\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of the member Helen White\u2019s question, I think she answered her own question, in that homeowners have more choices available to them, and she actually outlined them. The intent of the policy is to better target support, and, as I said, there are other policies that we\u2019ve put in place in Budget 2026 that actually provide increases to the accommodation supplement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00228c0bc323cb67f3435fdb49dd3608312c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006872\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228c0bc323cb67f3435fdb49dd3608312c\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:03)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019ve got a series of questions on Part 2 for the Minister for Social Development and Employment. I want to start with clause 13, but I\u2019m actually going to refer to Schedule 2. In Schedule\u00A02, \u201CNew Part 18 inserted into Schedule 1\u201D, new clause 132(a), I just want to check\u2014and this might be an understood term, so please just feel free to clarify\u2014what does \u201Cimmediately before 1 April 2027\u201D actually mean? Does it mean any time before 1\u00A0April 2027, a day before, a week before? I think it does help to understand the overall package of new clause 132 there. I think it\u2019s just that one word that would need some elucidation and clarification.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006873\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m going to go on to clause 15, amending Schedule 4, which is, essentially, what we are all discussing here. My first question is: in terms of this increase in terms of the threshold for homeowners from 30 to 40 percent, whether it\u2019s 30 or 40 percent, does it currently include, for example, insurance premiums for the property, or does it just simply refer to the baseline cost, which is both mortgage payment for principal and interest? This is just so I know exactly what is considered in this 40 percent package.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006874\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy other question for the Minister is: considering that, based on the supplementary analysis report, there are going to be children who are affected as a result of this, has the Minister sought any advice from Mana Mokopuna, the Children\u2019s Commission, around advice on the impact on children from this, or alternatively has she conducted a child impact statement to look at what impact this will have on children?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006875\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, the reason I raise that specifically is that we have seen the Child Poverty Action Group report only yesterday, where there have been 47,500 more children living in hardship since 2022. Is this policy helpful or unhelpful towards our child poverty reduction targets?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u0022c2aa63d95127e61d43ffb8ddb850219e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006876\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c2aa63d95127e61d43ffb8ddb850219e\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (20:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you so much. I note that the Minister for Social Development and Employment has an amendment tabled in relation to Schedule 2. I find it surprising that we have an amendment where the Minister did not seek the opportunity to talk about what it does and why she chose to bring it forward post - select committee stage. I would welcome the Minister\u2019s elucidation on what she\u2019s intending to actually achieve under the amendment to Schedule 2 and whether it actually addresses, perhaps, some of the questions from Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006877\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022145d134e2c079d993e80f7a40b5708a3\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, it does.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006878\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022914acb5e664fa4c7c231374a769853e3\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, you may think that, my dearest colleague, but until I hear it from the Minister, I will not be reassured that it actually addresses your concerns.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006879\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m just generally wanting the Minister to talk about it, and I\u2019d be keen to know why perhaps there was an error on Schedule 2 that needed to be addressed at this stage of the process. It kind of feels like a bit of a trend, at this point, of legislative lawmaking errors, whether they\u2019re the inclusion of the winter energy payment, or even I remember on a previous bill there was an \u201CA\u201D that was supposed to be a \u201CP\u201D, and vice versa, when it comes to \u201Capplicant\u201D or \u201Cperson\u201D, that, I believe, the Clerk fixed before it had Royal assent. I would love the Minister to also tell us at what point she identified that perhaps there may have been an error in the drafting of it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006880\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGoing back to the comments in relation to families with children, something that I think is not clear to me, and there are two different definitions\u2014I know that my colleague asked about child poverty targets. I\u2019m very specifically interested in the impact this has on material hardship rates. These are two very different concepts that the Government measures. I\u2019m interested in the material hardship rates because they actually just simply tell us whether children have enough to make ends meet, and that\u2019s actually the very strict definition\u2014are they able to cover their basic essentials? Because we know that around 60-plus percent of the families affected by this have children, I would like to know if there\u2019s a statistically significant difference in child material hardship rates arising from the decrease in the accommodation supplement that 9,000-plus families will see.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006881\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI say this because I think the latest reports on child poverty have found that there have been statistically significant changes around this, and so I\u2019m curious to know whether she modelled the hardship rate stuff and whether it\u2019s statistically significant. I want to pre-empt that she may claim, \u201CWell, but I\u2019m increasing it elsewhere,\u201D but I want to know, across the board\u2014I believe that the reductions in the accommodation supplement from this bill are still steeper than what the increases of some families may end up seeing on a per week basis per family. I\u2019m interested in those things, and I\u2019ve got some more questions on the people who it affects if the Minister would like to comment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u00222c4273dd926398c5334208a871e674ab\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006882\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222c4273dd926398c5334208a871e674ab\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (20:08)\u003C/span\u003E: To answer the previous member, Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s questions, there\u2019s no grandparenting of the accommodation supplement payments; they apply to all existing and new clients on or after 1 April 2027.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006883\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of the Amendment Paper, that was just one of those technical changes that\u2019s picked up by the Parliamentary Counsel Office to make sure that we are absolutely accurate when the bill is presented to the Parliament.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006884\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of the question around accommodation costs for homeowners, allowable accommodation costs include mortgage repayment, insurance, rates, water, and those sorts of costs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002290f442a79aea4ce0aeae083763135935\u0022 data-id=\u0022ea989dfdfb6903e1b6d0948442e01f66\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006885\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290f442a79aea4ce0aeae083763135935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ea989dfdfb6903e1b6d0948442e01f66\u0022\u003ECARL BATES (National\u2014Whanganui) (20:09)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003Ethat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006886\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228fd66b8f782b8bd75a0e39aeffb36bba\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: There\u2019s a little bit left in there, but it\u2019ll be fairly focused.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u002210b9512e6c1373addd7ea838821b65f6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006887\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002210b9512e6c1373addd7ea838821b65f6\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (20:09)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Would she have any information on the geographical areas across the country? I know she talked a lot about the rural areas that she\u2019s expanding the accommodation supplement on. I\u2019m interested in the geographical areas that may see the steepest reduction in the accommodation supplement on a per week basis.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006888\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ELike I said, I believe that the advice showed us that some families may see a reduction of around $40 per week, which is actually quite substantive if you\u2019re trying to meet your costs. But something that hasn\u2019t been addressed or engaged with has been the sort of geographical concentration of where those reductions will be. She talked a lot about the expansion of rural communities, but is the reduction, for example, predominantly in urban areas? Is it also in rural communities that currently have access to the accommodation supplement? Did she even make any analysis on the geographical sort of distribution of the families that will see a reduction; if not, why wouldn\u2019t she take that into account, well knowing that housing costs do differ across different parts of the country?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u002252bb4ac26a9b0758e40ccdf57bcc7bd2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002252bb4ac26a9b0758e40ccdf57bcc7bd2\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (20:10)\u003C/span\u003E: So the member will be aware that the accommodation supplement is based on bands across the country. I didn\u2019t address the comment before about the impact on child poverty. All measures in a budget are all taken in as a collection, rather than individual initiatives. So with Budget 2025, there was a report at the same time around impacts of Budget 2025 in its entirety, rather than this individual initiative.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u0022a58fb1b6faef457c3e4b6097eaee9541\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006890\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a58fb1b6faef457c3e4b6097eaee9541\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (20:11)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you so much, Mr Chair. I think the Minister for Social Development and Employment may have misunderstood my question. I think most of us know that accommodation supplement eligibility varies area by area. I\u2019m asking: where will the reduction be concentrated? I don\u2019t think it\u2019s the same thing. We\u2019re maybe speaking past each other. I say this because, for example, she hasn\u2019t engaged with another part of my question, which is around: does she foresee or does she guarantee that no one will miss out on mortgage payments and end up losing their home? The reason why the geographical distribution matters is: is she aware that perhaps some of these homeowners may be in areas where emergency housing may not be readily available? If they do lose their home and they do become homeless because they can no longer afford the mortgage, what options do families have?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006891\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI raise this further point because she hasn\u2019t given me any reassurances that no one will end up not being able to afford their mortgage as a result of these cuts. So if they\u2019re in areas where emergency housing doesn\u2019t exist, what will be left for these families? Again, this is no minor issue: $40 a week may not mean a lot for people in this Chamber, but it actually could mean a lifeline for the families who she is trimming the accommodation supplement for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u00229e46848cd57756792084dfb5393b3beb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006892\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229e46848cd57756792084dfb5393b3beb\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (20:12)\u003C/span\u003E: The two areas\u2014two regions\u2014who are most affected by this are Auckland and Canterbury. As the member Helen White herself answered the question, in terms of homeowners, they have more choices available to them than those that are renting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022 data-id=\u002210bb6441dc7bdbc2c80b7a5869e65050\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002210bb6441dc7bdbc2c80b7a5869e65050\u0022\u003ESUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip\u2014National) (20:12)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006894\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006895\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006896\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006897\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 39\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006898\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006899\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006900\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022878ab39ea018fc578b4fda610b84968d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 15 amending the homeowner accommodation supplement entry threshold to 35 percent be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006901\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006902\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 39\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006903\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006904\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006905\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006906\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006907\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002265a020accaf5870a58576c04d03cf77e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime\u2019s tabled amendments to the new clause 16 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006908\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006909\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 39\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006911\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006912\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006913\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006914\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Part 2 be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006916\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006917\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 39\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006918\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006919\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006920\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225f9936f034008cea130aa2119702fcc2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: We come to Schedule 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006921\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 1 be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006922\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006923\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006924\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 39\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006926\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006927\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002270ecae4abc067b120497552e950c9790\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 758 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006928\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006929\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006930\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006931\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 39\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006932\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006933\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006934\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 2 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006936\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006937\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 39\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006938\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006939\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006940\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002233ce848ff60169b24f6945a8de875519\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006941\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u00222e5eacefafd4201b4e2d4721ce3abc97\u0022\u003EClauses 1 to 3\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006942\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ac6b6d51374d952e4d6653f464de35e3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to our final debate, clauses 1 to 3\u2014\u201CTitle\u201D and \u201CCommencement\u201D and \u201CPrincipal Act\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022173bd27a35076fe09443025df7798a27\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006943\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022173bd27a35076fe09443025df7798a27\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to start with clause 2 on commencement. Now, I understand clause 2(2) coming into force 1 April, start of the financial year. That makes sense. I am curious as to the date for clause 1, because 2 November, however, is a very odd date to start a particular piece of legislation. So would the Minister for Social Development and Employment please elucidate on why the Act comes into force on 2 November 2026. That\u2019s my first question to the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022bb16ef297a8249e058643e5ca9e25eb0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006944\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bb16ef297a8249e058643e5ca9e25eb0\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (20:20)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s a Monday. It wouldn\u2019t make sense for it to be the 1st, because that would be Sunday.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006945\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002264ac5d35c94d4fe92221344c56be66bc\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll carry on with Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022128bd653771b590af390334f2d9e695f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006946\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022128bd653771b590af390334f2d9e695f\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:20)\u003C/span\u003E: I also want to check in terms of\u2014thank you, Minister, by the way. That does make sense. I do want to check with the Minister for Social Development and Employment on the title of this particular bill on whether \u201C(Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement)\u201D actually does reflect what this bill does, because I think, in some ways, it\u2019s not simply the accommodation supplement. The changes that we\u2019re seeing to the jobseeker is not simply to the jobseeker support itself, but in terms of the parental income requirement. So I just wanted to check with the Minister that in that particular title the parental income requirement, which is a substantial part of this bill, has not been added into the title of the bill, which would potentially lead to some confusion, because, for example, it\u2019s not simply granting jobseeker support. We could say, \u201C(Jobseeker Support Alteration and Accommodation Supplement)\u201D or \u201C(Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement Alteration) Amendment Bill\u201D. So I just want to seek the Minister\u2019s clarification that neither of those two things really reflect what we\u2019re seeing here in this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u00222afb962a7f0e3c64ae47cbc3689989a2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006947\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222afb962a7f0e3c64ae47cbc3689989a2\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (20:22)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you so much, Madam Chair. On the commencement, just noting that the Act itself comes into force on 2 November 2026, but Part 2 comes into force on 1 April 2027. Would the Minister be able to update us on the operationalisation requirements that mean that she\u2019s choosing to delay the commencement of Part 2 when it comes to the accommodation supplement changes? The reason why I ask this is that it seems like Part 1 in and of itself adds quite a lot of requirements to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). There\u2019s a parental income test, the parental gap stuff, which I assume requires additional training to give to MSD staff in being able to actually execute this on the ground and to do it accurately. So I\u2019m interested in understanding, so between now and 2 November, what resources have already been allocated or will be allocated to the training of staff to actually be able to familiarise themselves with the parental income test, the parental gap policies, and ensuring that those are implemented accurately?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006948\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EShe just expressed, today, disappointment in her ministry for not processing things in a timely fashion, so clearly there\u2019s a risk that this change could actually have a similar result. So all I am seeking\u2014and this is not about whether we agree or otherwise\u2014is information on what steps is she taking to ensure that before 2 November 2026, MSD front-line staffers will be adequately equipped with the training and the resources to implement the policies. And as a party that cares about fiscal responsibility, what matter of resources have been allocated to equipping MSD staffers to be able to implement this?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u002271b07c038dca66a805b69c3403036442\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006949\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002271b07c038dca66a805b69c3403036442\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (20:24)\u003C/span\u003E: As I said in an answer to a question on the previous part, the Ministry of Social Development are well aware of legislative change and this jobseeker support and accommodation supplement amendment bill was first conceived out of Budget 2025, so they have had time and planning and will have time to operationalise and prepare for this coming into effect. the first part of it on 2 November, and the accommodation supplement on 1 April next year.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u00225c0760e7150ba312b933650026937083\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006950\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225c0760e7150ba312b933650026937083\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (20:24)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. There\u2019s a difference between they\u2019ve known about this and the level of training they\u2019ve delivered. All I\u2019m asking is for a dollar figure if she knows one of the resources that are going into preparing Ministry of Social Development (MSD) staffers. For example, IT changes often need to happen. So I want to know if any IT changes are needing to happen within the MSD system to allow Part 1 to come into force, and whether those IT changes are ready or whether she\u2019s aware whether those IT changes are going to be ready by 2 November.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006951\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, on Part 2 about the commencement date, what is the rationale of delaying Part 2 to come into force up until April next year? I haven\u2019t heard any justification for it. I mean, she talked about how great it is that she\u2019s expanding the accommodation supplement to all these other people, but then this is coming about five or six months after Part 1. Is there a reason as to why the accommodation supplement changes need to come almost six months after the changes in Part 1? Is it because of, for example, implementation stuff, IT changes, is there another reason that we haven\u2019t heard from the Minister on?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006952\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELastly, on both of these changes, what resources is she using communications-wise to make sure that people are aware of these changes? So, for example, is it going to come through MyMSD correspondence? Are there going to be workshops for parents that the ministry may have identified who may have adults or people who about to become adults subjected by this policy to explain to them? The reason why I ask this\u2014again, this is not trifling on the issue\u2014is because I think the layperson will struggle to understand what a parental gap actually means in practice, right? It\u2019s quite complex to actually ascertain exactly what a severe family breakdown actually means in practice. If there are no communications to the families affected by this or the 18- and 19-year-olds who will be subjected by this, I would assume most families will just be navigating this in the dark. So, again, simple question: what are the resources, beyond just MSD\u2019s aware, that are being allocated either in communications or in training to ensure that people actually understand what a severe family breakdown is for the purposes of the parental gap test?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022ab344ba6485cae59d0bd1c4108017aac\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006953\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ab344ba6485cae59d0bd1c4108017aac\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (20:27)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the member\u2019s question about why 1 April 2027: there\u2019s a substantial amount of work in the new boundaries. As I said before, members, like the member for Southland, Joseph Mooney, have advocated for a very long time around the accommodation supplement boundaries being reviewed so that there are more eligible people who are available. That comes into effect on 1 April 2027, which is lined up with this entry threshold amendment. As I said, savings from the entry requirement come into effect on the same day that we are extending the accommodation supplement to New Zealanders that previously weren\u2019t eligible for it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006954\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI think there are a large number of New Zealanders who already understand. Our Government\u2019s focus is for 18- and 19-year-olds to be in employment, education, or training. So I don\u2019t think that\u2019ll be difficult for them to understand first and foremost that is the expectation. Yes, there will be a small number that, because of a parental support gap or a parental income test, may need to rely on the State, but first and foremost it\u2019ll be families.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022297bc572c27f45308dffb067ca3e7915\u0022 data-id=\u0022af9d795cf6aa9109426362a7c39ae155\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006955\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022297bc572c27f45308dffb067ca3e7915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022af9d795cf6aa9109426362a7c39ae155\u0022\u003EDr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National\u2014Ilam) (20:28)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006956\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006957\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006958\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 39\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006960\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006961\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006962\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat clause 1 be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006963\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006964\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006965\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 39\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006966\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006967\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006968\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat clause 2 be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006969\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006970\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006971\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 39\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006972\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006973\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006974\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat clause 3 be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006976\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006977\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 39\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006978\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006979\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 3 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006980\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill to be reported with amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006981\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHouse resumed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006982\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a5415d42e6715ed1924e11b421238759\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the report be adopted\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006983\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EReport adopted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006985\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002219c4c24238ed38a70490ea35b0f44964\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: This bill is set down for third reading immediately.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006986\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a75f902fee9bfed75bc215e546c1ea0c\u0022\u003EThird Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022acbb60a2a1f0fee7a50348de8a41f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006987\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022acbb60a2a1f0fee7a50348de8a41f7e9\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (20:32)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill be now read a third time\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006988\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to begin by reiterating the core purpose of the bill. It amends the Social Security Act to better target financial assistance to those most in need. The bill enables the Ministry of Social Development to implement two initiatives that were announced in Budget 2025. Taken together, these two initiatives are expected to support financial sustainability of the welfare system and reflect the Government\u2019s vision for a firm, fair, and simple welfare system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006989\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn my final remarks, I want to touch briefly on the purpose of these two changes. Firstly, the bill tightens the eligibility criteria for jobseeker support and the equivalent emergency benefit for 18- and 19-year-olds by introducing a parental assistance test. When this initiative is implemented, young people will need to meet the parental assistance test criteria before they can access or continue to access either of these benefits. This initiative will reinforce the expectation that young people who are not in employment, education, or training should be financially supported by their parents, not relying on taxpayers through the welfare system. Several OECD countries place tighter eligibility criteria on young people seeking welfare, some of which have age restrictions much higher for their equivalent jobseeker benefit. Young people will have better future outcomes if they remain close to the labour market or enter study rather than being on the jobseeker benefit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006990\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESecondly, the bill supports the accommodation supplement more tightly for some homeowners. It increases the minimum weekly contribution some homeowners must make before they are eligible to receive the accommodation supplement. The change increases the entry threshold from 30 to 40 percent of their income. Homeowners who are receiving New Zealand superannuation, veterans pension, supported living payment, or the emergency benefit, if that is the equivalent to the supported living payment, will not be impacted by this change. Their circumstances are less likely to change, and they are likely to require longer-term social assistance. The partner or spouse of a recipient of one of these benefits will also not be impacted by this change.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006991\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, I want to note that these changes will come into force on two different dates. The jobseeker support changes will come into force on 2 November this year, and the accommodation supplement changes will come into force on 1 April 2027.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006992\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThese changes will deliver on the commitments made in Budget 2025 and support the fiscal sustainability of the welfare system by targeting support to those most in need. We will continue to support New Zealanders who have no other means of support available to them, but when individuals or their parents are able to provide that support, our expectation is that they should do so. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006993\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224fd4fb15b679f75f955b21dc81e9ccfe\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022 data-id=\u0022e8799a02349ad64bb18ab6eccfb37f28\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006994\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e8799a02349ad64bb18ab6eccfb37f28\u0022\u003EHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (20:36)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call in the third reading of the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill. This bill is here for the last time, and our opposition to it has not moved since we spoke against it in the first reading. In fact, everything we have heard since strengthens the case against it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006995\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to talk about the select committee process. Before I turn to the substance of the bill, I\u2019d like to take us back to the select committee process. The Social Services and Community Committee received 933 submissions in scope, and only one supported it. If the Minister was listening\u2014which, it\u2019s clear from that committee stage that we\u2019ve just had, she wasn\u2019t\u2014that result should have prompted a rethink. But, as we know from previous pieces of legislation that the Minister has brought into the House under urgency or through normal proceedings, no changes are made as a result of efforts, putting in amendments, asking questions, and seeking clarification.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006996\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen, \u201Cnek minnit\u201D, we have two apologies in one week over mistakes that have been made through either the legislation, the policy settings behind it, or the implementation of it. This Government promised that when they made cuts to the Public Service, it wasn\u2019t going to impact on the front line, but what we have seen this week is that those back-office cuts have impacted on the front line, and it has meant that beneficiaries have not received what they are entitled to. The Minister is ploughing ahead with another piece of legislation in a cost of living crisis and making it harder for 18- and 19-year-olds and their wh\u0101nau.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006997\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI did put some amendments on the Table. The Minister didn\u2019t accept any of those.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006998\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to point out again to the House that the regulatory impact statement was very clear. They said that in terms of the impact on young people and their families, the costs will significantly outweigh the benefits\u2014the costs will significantly outweigh the benefits. If that is not a reason to abandon this bill before it was even introduced, I don\u2019t know what is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520006999\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt undermines young adults. Here we have 18- and 19-year-olds. They\u2019re going to be able to vote. They\u2019re going to be able to sign a residential tenancy in their own name. But now, because this Government basically wants to make some savings, they\u2019re making them the responsibility of their parents for longer, which is not mana-enhancing for these young adults.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007000\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe income test in this legislation is also very low. It sits close to the median household income, and, further, it takes no account of how many other children live in that household or how far that income actually stretches in that household. There were significant questions asked in the committee stage about this and just dismissed\u2014carry on, push ahead. We know from the regulatory impact statement and we know from the communities that we live in that this bill will place significant hardship on wh\u0101nau across the country, at a time when they are all really struggling to get by because of the Government\u2019s choices. In fact, yesterday I was at the launch of the Child Poverty Action Group\u2019s manifesto for this election, and they specifically talked about this change for 18- and 19-year-olds and the impact that it will have not only on those 18- and 19-year-olds but on their households, which will have younger children living in those households, making it harder for those families and pushing more into material hardship.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to come to the point that the Minister says this is all about getting young people into work, but she has not been paying attention to the fact that we have the highest unemployment rate in 11 years and our youth unemployment rate is the highest in 30\u00A0years. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe had submissions from the Council of Trade Unions. They represent 370\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022086b000e96a22f0caf179e387d175075\u0022\u003EHon Matt Doocey\u003C/span\u003E: Oh! The old union mates.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002250d1f0c2f0359b57c789dc5878344d7c\u0022\u003EHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME\u003C/span\u003E: Oh! Every time I mention the name \u201Cunion\u201D, the other side of the House starts making that sound: \u201COh! Don\u2019t wanna hear it.\u201D But they said representing 370,000 workers, and they told the committee plainly that it will not achieve the aim of reducing dependency on jobseeker support. Young people are not staying out of work because they\u2019ve lost interest in it; they are trying to find work and in a market that doesn\u2019t have enough jobs for them. The jobs they are looking for are ones that are scarce in these economic times.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f0d31505882949b1a768aad60863fba9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a11013e185b422ff65af99fddc27e499\u0022\u003EJoseph Mooney\u003C/span\u003E: Training and education.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fd0095ebe0979f1089c03ec1a12aa991\u0022\u003EHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s that, sorry?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f0d31505882949b1a768aad60863fba9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002273a87175ba34ca21587ba499aa1d6902\u0022\u003EJoseph Mooney\u003C/span\u003E: With the training and education.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d18ed0a6590cf9d1e052d5463e265136\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: This isn\u2019t a debate across the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002205ad9b642f67d1f0dd75e71d69601311\u0022\u003EHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, appropriate for everybody, is it? Yeah, maybe you should have participated in the committee of the whole House stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI have given this example before: 1,200 applicants for one cleaning job in Auckland. There are not sufficient jobs for our young people. I was talking to AJ Hendry from Kick Back, who some of you may be familiar with for his advocacy on homelessness. Another issue that his young people have when they are coming through their doors is that they cannot find work. They are applying for jobs multiple times, not even getting a response to their applications. It is tough out there for our young people, but this Government doesn\u2019t care. We also saw the impact that this will disproportionately have on M\u0101ori and disabled children. But the Government again ignored that evidence and that advice and are pushing on ahead. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also want to turn briefly to the fact that by not having the jobseeker support, it means that these young people are not entitled to the programmes that help them get into work. That was made very clear in the submissions and so now that is a missing piece. In fact, in the officials\u2019 advice, they said, in order to achieve the objectives, the policy outcomes of ensuring that we don\u2019t have the young people coming on benefit and staying on for this long period of time that the Minister talks about, the best solution to that would actually be to provide more programmes supporting young people into employment, not cutting their benefit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn the final minutes that I\u2019ve got left, I just want to speak briefly to the accommodation supplement changes: raising the threshold from 30 percent to 40 percent. What is really sad to hear, and when you look at the advice that we\u2019ve received from the officials, is that the people who are going to be impacted by this\u2014even though the Minister was trying to say to us that nothing\u2019s changed, no eligibility has changed. Well, actually, there\u2019s a whole 10 percent change in the percentage in terms of the base rate. So the people that are going to be impacted by this, while some might benefit from this switching that she\u2019s doing, the ones that are actually going to be suffering as a result of this are low to medium income households. The change in this threshold is going to make it harder for them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn summary, this Government has a habit of making choices that make life harder for people already under pressure. This is another bad choice. It will not create jobs. It will put more pressure on young people and their families. It will push more families into hardship and push young people further from the support that they rely on. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI will close by acknowledging the over 900 people who wrote to our select committee, sharing what they believe the impact of this bill will be on those young people, advocating, pleading for the Minister and this Government to listen to what it is that they have got to say. But the Government hasn\u2019t listened. They haven\u2019t made any of those suggested changes and they are pushing ahead, which just goes to show what this Government really thinks about our young people. We do not commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u0022c497d1b32ab2903d34f88e2040a33fff\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c497d1b32ab2903d34f88e2040a33fff\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (20:45)\u003C/span\u003E: You would think that when this lot sees over 1,000 young people applying for the same job that the problem isn\u2019t that young people aren\u2019t trying to get a job, but perhaps, just maybe, that there\u2019s not enough jobs out there. And perhaps, just maybe, the fact that this Government cut thousands of jobs and graduate programmes for young people is contributing to the very same conditions that is leading to over 1,000 people applying for a single job out there. Cutting benefits for 18- and 19-year-olds will not suddenly address the youth unemployment crisis. For all the National MPs who talk about getting young people off the couch, get off your bloody comfortable seats, get out on the streets, and actually talk.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b84ed3acab82ec92630e2c02aa2377ea\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Just keep it parliamentary, please\u2014keep it parliamentary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222b00db4e492031a61eca61a4abcf6b76\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, go out more and go talk to people out there more, because, unlike you, I actually have worked on the front lines with people on the benefit and have seen the very same families and the faces of the thousands of people that this is impacting. If you have, then you don\u2019t care.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETell me that you care about the cancer patients, Vanessa Weenink. Tell me that you care about the people with psychiatric and psychological conditions that will be left without an income support. If any members here have a medical degree, tell me that they were taught that cutting income support improves mental health outcomes. Tell me what evidence they\u2019ve ever seen in their degrees that tells you that someone who\u2019s facing a psychological or psychiatric condition\u2014which makes up almost 70 percent of the jobseekers injury, health conditions, or disability\u2014will have their lives improved as a result of welfare cuts. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESomehow the issue with people who are sick, injured, and disabled, apparently according to these members, is that they\u2019re not trying hard enough. If the members on the other side are going to be talking about young people not getting off the couch and disrespecting them, they need to own up to the fact that they perhaps are the ones who need to get out more and talk to young people who are struggling to get a job themselves, the very same families they\u2019re about to cut support from. I find it unparliamentary and disrespectful that, throughout all this debate, the Minister for Social Development and Employment has claimed that it is the parents\u2019 responsibility of looking after a cancer patient or someone with a serious health condition who may be about to lose their benefit as a result of these policies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill has nothing to do with actually addressing our youth unemployment crisis. It all has to do with saving money through welfare cuts on the poorest and most vulnerable, to pay for the tax cuts that disproportionately support high-income families. You don\u2019t even have to believe me. Look at the Ministry of Social Development\u2019s latest incomes report, that shows that beneficiaries are literally worse off after this term of Government. You don\u2019t have to believe me. In fact, you don\u2019t even need to get out more; you just need to read your own Government\u2019s reports. The families who this bill is affecting are not just the lowest of the lowest-income families; it includes everyday working families who may be struggling to put food on the table. The settings for the parental income tests have been set so low that families with a combined income of, say, $80,000 will not be adequately supported to ensure that their young adult child\u201418- to 19-year-old\u2014actually is supported as they enter in transition into employment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBecause if the members on the other side of the House claim to believe that a family with a combined income of $80,000 is doing it well enough to be able to support multiple young adults, they\u2019re completely out of touch, and I urge them to spend perhaps a week in the life of young people and their families, or serving them, just even maybe respecting them, for a change. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe cuts to the accommodation supplement are also inexcusable. Imagine justifying taking from a group of people that are struggling to set up\u2014but don\u2019t worry, we\u2019ll give it to another group that is struggling. Imagine claiming that perhaps the only group you had to find money from was families who were struggling. Imagine a Minister who claims over $50,000 each year on taxpayer subsidies for a home that she owns and has no debt on, but that perhaps it was low-income homeowners who should have to foot the bill. This is exactly the narrative, the agenda, that this Government is pushing for. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is always the people on welfare who have to foot the bill if there are cuts. It is always the people who are doing it the toughest and most affected by the job cuts that have to foot the bill for the tax cuts that mostly benefit people who are on high incomes. These families are not just numbers, and no matter how much the Minister for Social Development and Employment will claim that she\u2019s taking a firm and fair approach, it doesn\u2019t make it true. You cannot just conjure up good lawmaking by repeating the same buzzwords time and time again. We\u2019ve been proven right. The fact that we have been highlighting concerns throughout the whole of this term about the implementation of welfare policies, including this one, only to then be shown that, yeah, in fact, all of these agendas from the Government are not necessarily resulting in better outcomes for young people. It is instead an overwhelmed Ministry of Social Development (MSD) frontline who has not been able to keep up to date with the processing delays that they\u2019re experiencing with other policies this Government has introduced that have led to countless benefits being wrongfully cut.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo when we asked the Minister in this debate whether she has actually done any due diligence to ensure that she can implement these changes, to ensure that there\u2019s positive outcomes for young people, all she has to say is, \u201CWell, I expect MSD to do as I say.\u201D That is not a responsible Minister or a responsible lawmaker. Just saying that she expects her ministry to do as she says without guaranteeing the resources or equipping the front line to do so will not make it happen. This takes me back to the fact that the Minister, in my view, has no regard for the lives of beneficiaries. She has no regard for the lives of beneficiaries, and I see them saying, \u201COh my god, no.\u201D, but listen to how your Minister and the Prime Minister referred to people on the benefit\u2014with no dignity nor respect. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen has the Prime Minister or the Minister ever actually owned up to the fact that people on welfare are trying their best, and are trying their best often in circumstances that I think would break many of us? I know this because, having worked at Auckland Action Against Poverty prior to coming here, I saw the families that this bill is affecting. I saw who they were, I saw their faces, and I saw so many families during that time that, if I am being truthful, I cannot remember every single one of them, but there are stories that stay with me. The families who are begging to Work and Income for enough assistance so that they can put on weight for a lifesaving surgery, only to be questioned about whether they should be getting takeaways despite living in emergency accommodation even without cooking facilities. These are the realities of the families on low incomes that bills like this are touching and affecting and that are changing their livelihoods. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EYou cannot just present this bill as if it is an abstract construct devoid of affecting people\u2019s everyday realities and are potentially life-ruining for parents who are on low to middle incomes. This bill could wreck people\u2019s lives. It will not actually push more people into employment, and I find it unparliamentary and offensive that members across the House support the Minister\u2019s remarks claiming that cutting welfare for sick, injured, and disabled people will bring them closer to the labour market. If you\u2019re sick, injured, or disabled, you need support to get to a position where you, potentially, if what you\u2019re looking for is employment, that you can actually achieve it. If you\u2019re injured, I do not see how cutting income support will get you any closer to the labour market. I\u2019d love for the members to actually explain that to me. Tell me how an injured person having their welfare cut actually gets them anywhere closer to a job. Tell me how parents earning $80,000 combined will adequately support a cancer patient who\u2019s having their welfare cut. I don\u2019t think they can. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe worst thing is that, across the other side of the House, there are people with medical degrees. They should know better. They know, and they well know that incomes are directly tied to health outcomes. They know that incomes are directly tied to health outcomes, and if you take those incomes away, you\u2019re making those health outcomes worse.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bbaa46d5ee6ca241e04094241d29c5ef\u0022\u003EHon James Meager\u003C/span\u003E: Did your dad teach you that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022da6b3df4ffcb71e42148b41a48facb78\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, they do teach\u2014you don\u2019t even need a medical degree to know this; all it takes is for you to get outside, James Meager.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221f232059c9d873a36882ed3048e52f28\u0022\u003EHon James Meager\u003C/span\u003E: Did your dad teach you that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d913079761ab9ca6527e552aa142f10d\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, my dad taught me that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226885435d2b7a8eb7a829cf9b7ac35caf\u0022\u003EHon James Meager\u003C/span\u003E: Ah, because he\u2019s a\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002279a7e20efad966951941a75e217565e4\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, he\u2019s a doctor, and it turns out that, yeah, actually, it does help to have people in your family who understand how things work. It turns out that maybe you should have learnt better from your own environment. Yeah. Because it seems to me that if you\u2019re going to conjure my family to justify whether you understand welfare policies, you ought to actually realise the harm that you are doing. If all you have, James Meager, are references to my dad as to my understanding of welfare policy, shame on you for your disregard of the lives that this bill is affecting. Shame on you for even trying to conjure people\u2019s families into this debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002242096cd1a3d1b7a7d9e2e7fb8040b53f\u0022\u003EHon James Meager\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. I seek leave to make a personal explanation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002242bea4bc687fda44de49e5513fcb65b9\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ff0d23ebc7325f1be00188234c913ddc\u0022\u003EHon James Meager\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019d just like to make an apology to the member for raising his family in the debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223a66c3be8bcc066139ad8239ed06d251\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH\u003C/span\u003E: Apology accepted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221a30b7d60a03452cb9b736efc6896cdb\u0022 data-id=\u00220899de369624091c83d90e74d122fe9f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a30b7d60a03452cb9b736efc6896cdb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220899de369624091c83d90e74d122fe9f\u0022\u003EDr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) (20:55)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I\u2019m taking this call on behalf of ACT to support the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill\u2019s third reading. Government must make choices, and a Government\u2019s choices should be such that they are fair for all hard-working New Zealanders, and also fair for people who are receiving any kind of benefit\u2014it should be fair for both. The ACT Party\u2019s approach is very simple and very straightforward, that people who need support should be getting the support, but it should not encourage dependency on the system. We should encourage people to get off the benefit and become independent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn this bill, there are two things which are quite straightforward and quite simple, and this is the parental assistance test for 18- and 19-year-olds. I say to the member who spoke before that he needs to understand how to interpret the parental assistance test. That will be applied for 18- and 19-year-olds, those who will be seeking jobseeker support. It\u2019s a fair expectation, because if parents can support these young people, then why should they rely on taxpayers? The responsibility should first settle on the parents if parents are able to provide that assistance. The second point in this bill is about the accommodation supplement. Again, it\u2019s important that resources are directed where they are needed the most. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s a very straightforward bill. It\u2019s about ensuring that we are fair to people who are on the benefit, and also fair to people who are contributing to the revenue that Government spends, so the ACT Party is pleased to support this bill. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c117f6511bc4b8fb6fdcf9c6133fb99\u0022 data-id=\u0022ec5260d9aa32ffc7333d26c1a0ccdac8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c117f6511bc4b8fb6fdcf9c6133fb99\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ec5260d9aa32ffc7333d26c1a0ccdac8\u0022\u003EDr DAVID WILSON (NZ First) (20:57)\u003C/span\u003E: I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill. I heard the impassioned speech from the member from the Green Party, and I understand what you\u2019re talking about, but just to back up to what the member Parmjeet Parmar was talking about in terms of the parental assistance test, the median wage in New Zealand is $74,000, so the anecdote that you gave me is probably a little bit on the extreme, but, OK, I heard you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EOn the jobseeker support, New Zealand First supports the fact that young people get into work, training, or education. As for the accommodation supplement, we\u2019re very pleased that superannuitants and veterans are not impacted by these changes. Thank you, Madam Speaker. We commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222355634790c76b8b8525834fae578fb5\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Celia Wade-Brown. This is the second of the split call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e66329e431ea47019b41524c6ef2954a\u0022 data-id=\u0022c3c6fc5361ca93faf0b764b2124ab554\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e66329e431ea47019b41524c6ef2954a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c3c6fc5361ca93faf0b764b2124ab554\u0022\u003ECELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (20:58)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. We continue to oppose this bill at the third reading, as we have consistently done for very good reason. As I said not very long ago in my speech in the second reading, cutting income support does not create a single job.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELet\u2019s be clear about the level at which parents are expected to support their children. This is not one person earning $67,000; this is a combined income of two people that is expected, however many other children they\u2019ve got, whether they\u2019ve got twin teenagers, whether they\u2019ve got people who need special food because they\u2019ve got some particular illness, and that is so little for them to be able to look after their 18- and 19-year-olds who would probably rather be independent. They may not be able to have jobs because there are no jobs, or they may not be able to apply because they don\u2019t have the health to be able to do those jobs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI was really disappointed that our members opposite not only dissed the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, but they actually dissed a website that is trying to help people connect with our democracy. Now, members in this House, whether they\u2019re lawyers or engineers or whatever, are perfectly competent at writing a whole, long submission. But I\u2019m not sure it\u2019s always the erudite professorial submissions that make a difference. I want to hear from people who are doing it tough, who actually don\u2019t have time, or potentially education, to write a huge long submission. If the yeahnah website helps people express themselves to this House through the select committee, I think we should welcome it, rather than dismiss it, because it actually helps people to have a say.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf we believe in honest democracy and open politics, we should be encouraging people who have potentially disabilities, potentially not very good education, and a number of other disadvantages, to have their say. But it\u2019s all of a piece! If they can\u2019t write something that\u2019s NCEA level 3 English, then we\u2019re not going to listen because it came through from yeahnah. I have to say that\u2019s been one of the English language challenges, coming across from the other hemisphere, to learn what \u201Cyeah, nah\u201D means, and I still have my doubts about it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI just want to expand on one area that would help people who are not in education, employment, or training. It\u2019s resourcing tailored services, and in particular, it\u2019s resourcing them in rural and provincial areas. If you\u2019re living in a town, there is perhaps the opportunity for more support\u2014if you\u2019re living in a big town or city.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI am so impressed by what Dale Williams, who was then Mayor of \u014Ctorohanga, set up. He then became a Carterton District councillor, but he set up Mayors Taskforce for Jobs, and it connects rangatahi with employers that local government knows\u2014frankly, better than most electorate MPs, because they\u2019ve got smaller areas, because they spend all their time there rather than staying in this House till midnight.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are 36 rural and provincial councils actively working with the Ministry of Social Development, so it is a good local and central government partnership, or should I say it\u2019s potentially a good partnership because this Government cut their budget. It was a pretty minimal budget of $11 million a year, and they cut it down. I think it\u2019s now $8\u00A0million, and that\u2019s got to support\u201480 percent of their cases have to be job seekers. I just want to finish by saying the Green Party will repeal this legislation and create a supportive safety net for our rangatahi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f0d31505882949b1a768aad60863fba9\u0022 data-id=\u00226eaa02abef47ac3194cfa3634e1d73d4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f0d31505882949b1a768aad60863fba9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226eaa02abef47ac3194cfa3634e1d73d4\u0022\u003EJOSEPH MOONEY (National\u2014Southland) (21:03)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak at the third reading of this bill. This Government believes that we need to target support to those most in need. This Government also knows that young people under the age of 25 on a benefit will spend up to 20 years of their lifetime on a benefit. We believe 18- and 19-year-olds need to be either in training, in education, or in employment. The Opposition has focused just on the employment in most of their speeches. If they\u2019re not in employment, they need to be in education or training. This will set them up for a lifetime. I support this bill, I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022 data-id=\u00222819f79576650c514f1d424df4a43744\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222819f79576650c514f1d424df4a43744\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert) (21:04)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you Madam Speaker. I\u2019m also on the Social Services and Community Committee, and I accept that there is a real issue with just ignoring submissions that you don\u2019t like the sound of, and it was resounding that the submitters did not like this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I just want to take the average New Zealander through what we\u2019re doing here tonight, because they were promised something by the people who are now in Government. They were promised there was going to be a reduction in the costs they faced out there. They were promised this\u2014meanwhile, this Government shelled out money to landlords, and it shelled out money to tobacco companies, and it has to pay for it somehow. This is who\u2019s paying for it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA family that has an 18-year-old who might just want to go into work. \u201CWhat\u2019s wrong with that?\u201D, we\u2019d say. It\u2019s a good thing\u2014isn\u2019t it?\u2014that they want to go into work. They don\u2019t want to go into study; they want to go into work. There might be reasons for that, but they also just might want to go into work, which is a perfectly legitimate thing to want\u2014isn\u2019t it?\u2014and, in fact, where we\u2019re supposed to be going. That family with that kid, they might have applied for a number of jobs, and given that there\u2019s record high unemployment in this country for that group\u201430-year record high for unemployment\u2014it\u2019s not actually that easy to do. That mother or father, or both, that are on a combined income of just over $62,000 gross a year, they are now going to be responsible for their kid for the next couple of years while they try and find work. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELet\u2019s just think about how many families are affected in New Zealand. When they did the analysis on this, they said that 68.8 percent of the people impacted by this piece of legislation were families. They were going to be our families. They might have lots of kids, they might have four kids\u2014we actually need more children in this country. We are going to have a huge problem if we don\u2019t have more children, but, apparently, we get punished for that right now. If you\u2019ve got four children and you\u2019re trying to divide your $62,000 and you\u2019ve got an 18-year-old to support in that circumstance, there\u2019s no help for you. If you own your own home, you\u2019re in really big trouble then, because what you\u2019re expected to do is go out there and use your choices\u2014this is what the Minister called it tonight. Your choices are things like, refinancing your mortgage, etc.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat, again, the experts said when they were criticising and talking about this bill\u2014they were critiquing it, they were trying to give us decent feedback. They said that\u2019s not really good, that\u2019s not a great thing because those families just simply\u2014we\u2019re not taking into account the fact that they\u2019ve got, actually, a lot of bills to pay. I think we all know that, and I keep on being told off for mentioning the cost of butter, but it is actually a big deal in most New Zealand families.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe can be excited for the community that are making money out of that, which is the farming community, but it\u2019s not actually that good if you are in Mt Albert on $62,000, and you have four kids, and you have an 18-year-old. It doesn\u2019t help. You\u2019ve still got to buy the butter, and it\u2019s gone up considerably. Those families, well, they now have to pay. They\u2019re going to be $42 worse off a week. Whereas, a group without children, with the same issue over that second part of the legislation, it\u2019s only $37. So we\u2019re actually, again, punishing our families. They are now much worse off than they were.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat this is, is a combined issue. That\u2019s pointed out again by the experts, they say to take these two things together\u2014the fact that you\u2019ve got an 18-year-old, and you\u2019ve got this issue over your support of your accommodation supplement being less. Take those two together and it\u2019s pretty crushing. It causes real harm, and they call it financial stress\u2014they say it\u2019s a lot of financial stress. Well, it is\u2014it\u2019s a lot of financial stress. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis Government that promised people that they were going to help with the cost of living crisis, they\u2019ve made the lives of the very families they should be looking after much worse tonight. That\u2019s what we\u2019re doing tonight: we\u2019re making their lives harder\u2014big money-harder.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I know that if we look at that amount, it probably isn\u2019t much for some of the people on the other side of the House, but it is for a lot of people in my area of Mt Albert. That\u2019s going to really hurt them. I am not proud of this legislation and I do not commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002288978fb9592a4911a8e47eae04d164f3\u0022 data-id=\u00220c2e2f94ca69d8915c5235996174b1eb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002288978fb9592a4911a8e47eae04d164f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220c2e2f94ca69d8915c5235996174b1eb\u0022\u003EDr VANESSA WEENINK (National\u2014Banks Peninsula) (21:09)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022deea12d6c85b6afc266d1b5fd39202fb\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I haven\u2019t even managed to write her name down it was that fast! The Hon Willie Jackson.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022 data-id=\u00223721164049e30ef072fdd01855344d4a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223721164049e30ef072fdd01855344d4a\u0022\u003EHon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (21:09)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. That type of speech just shows you how much respect the Government has for young people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226f2f3251aeba5fb7a34f9a9a57b61bd3\u0022\u003ETom Rutherford\u003C/span\u003E: Let\u2019s see what you say in the next five.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022345d47fbcad7cd8cc0c0fc7f0e64f983\u0022\u003EFrancisco Hernandez\u003C/span\u003E: Four seconds.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002279438a6f2f7ccdcb605a652422bfc6c1\u0022\u003EHon WILLIE JACKSON\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, four seconds, that\u2019s about it in terms of the Government\u2019s respect, and how hard wh\u0101nau are doing it at the moment. I would\u2019ve thought more from that member would\u2019ve been more forthcoming, but no, we don\u2019t get it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHere\u2019s a question for her and that useless lot on the other side. Where are the jobs? That\u2019s what the question is: where are the jobs that these young people are meant to be going to? I don\u2019t understand. You\u2019re getting hundreds, now, who are lining up for jobs they normally would have got, and they\u2019re not getting there. But this lot doesn\u2019t care, because we all know that this is all about saving money for their rich mates. That\u2019s what it\u2019s all about. They don\u2019t care about young people. They don\u2019t care about families. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs my colleagues have been saying, and people have been saying all the way through this debate, this is about looking after their priorities in terms of society\u2014the oil and gas lobbyists, the tobacco companies, the landlords. This is what it\u2019s all about. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe get regularly scrutinised\u2014\u201COh, where are you going with the money?\u201D We\u2019re going to take the money\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022943adb37436c1017aa2ab020c9474c7c\u0022\u003ETom Rutherford\u003C/span\u003E: You are a landlord.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002237f6a5d167414db52c8719c4c025a14f\u0022\u003EHon WILLIE JACKSON\u003C/span\u003E: No, I\u2019m not. No, I am not. I\u2019m not a landlord\u2014we\u2019re going to take the money off their rich mates and give it to wh\u0101nau and families who are in need. That\u2019s what this is all about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EDespite a select committee being 99 percent against what this Government was doing\u2014virtually nobody came to the select committee and supported the Government. They\u2019ve ignored the select committee. They\u2019ve ignored what the people are saying out there. So many people are opposed to this; families affected out there, but they just continue on with their cuts, cuts, cuts in terms of public services. I\u2019m pleased that this side of the House stands up and reminds the other side, people on the other side who should know better\u2014Dan Bidois, well, I\u2019ve given up on Dan some time ago; James Meager over there\u2014he\u2019s too busy trying to blimmin\u2019 plot his way to being the first M\u0101ori Prime Minister and he\u2019s failed miserably so far; we all know he cares more about rugby than the Prime Minister. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe reality is that this is a serious kaupapa for us and that\u2019s why we have extended the k\u014Drero so much and so far. I\u2019m really pleased to stand up and say, \u201CWhere is the mahi?\u201D You see the Government had a choice; the Ministry of Social Development could have invested in many of the programmes that we put in place. They\u2019ve still got He Poutama Rangatahi; they\u2019ve still got Mana in Mahi, but they have severely reduced the funding in those areas; they\u2019ve cut M\u0101ori trade training\u2014these are programmes where we see real results for young people. We\u2019ve got record youth unemployment at the moment. We\u2019ve got record worst M\u0101ori unemployment in 10 years; worst youth employment in 30 years; unemployment at an all-time high. And here you have wh\u0101nau being attacked by this uncaring Government, which is doomed over the next two months. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m pleased to stand up tonight and am proud to say that Labour absolutely opposes this bill. We\u2019re disappointed in the Minister who should know more, but we\u2019re particularly disappointed in this Government who continues to cut and cut and cut back on workers\u2019 rights, on M\u0101ori rights, on women\u2019s rights, and we\u2019ve had enough. We\u2019re going to oppose this Government all the way to when we break up at the end of September. They should try and understand that young people now are not only going to be looking for jobs, but they now have their parents having to carry the burden. It is not fair. This is not fair on their parents. This is not fair on wh\u0101nau. This is not fair on communities. Shame on this Government. Thank you, Madam Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022 data-id=\u00225c76ca2f0887911a2ca76648ced42230\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225c76ca2f0887911a2ca76648ced42230\u0022\u003EDAN BIDOIS (National\u2014Northcote) (21:14)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s a pleasure to bring this debate back to the bill tonight, because this bill is all about strengthening our welfare system to target those most in need. It\u2019s all about targeting those most in need and bringing to the fore the value of personal responsibility and strong families, which is what we are all about. That\u2019s why I support and commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225322e0a4529b497cbc59faf0515037dd\u0022 data-id=\u00229d027c956b28887d1669f1308b488df2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225322e0a4529b497cbc59faf0515037dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229d027c956b28887d1669f1308b488df2\u0022\u003ESHANAN HALBERT (Labour) (21:14)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It\u2019s always good to stand in this House and speak to the community that I live in and the realities that many people are facing. The previous member, Dan Bidois, just said that this is a bill that is strengthening social welfare. That is a ridiculous statement, because it does not do anything such as that. The reality of this is that this bill is really about a cost-savings exercise or a cut for this Government. They are taking money out of the system that currently supports 18- and 19-year-olds, young people in this country, who tend to be the most vulnerable throughout our communities across Aotearoa New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne would say that \u201Cno, absolutely, we don\u2019t want young people on benefits\u201D. The statistics are correct to say that if a young person goes on a benefit, then yes, they are more likely to stay on there for longer. However, the reality is that there has to be an alternative and I believe absolutely, as Labour\u2019s tertiary education spokesperson, that we have to have those alternatives in place. But I challenge that, as well, because under this Government and this particular Minister, putting this bill in front of us tonight, is a massive cut to things like the Apprenticeship Boost scheme. We\u2019ve seen 17,000 less apprentices be active on the job since this Government took office\u201417,000. We\u2019ve seen the highest unemployment rate that we\u2019ve seen in decades at 5.5\u00A0percent, and the highest for young people in 30 years. If we look at young people not engaged in education, employment, or training, that has peaked under this Government at almost 100,000\u2014100,000 young people aren\u2019t engaged in employment, education, or training. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s where this bill does not make sense, because if this Government had a genuine commitment to training young people, then there wouldn\u2019t be the cuts to the tertiary education sector or to initiatives that actually support young people into work or into training to get the qualifications that they need. The qualification, of course, is important because that leads to job security, that leads to higher wages, and that sets them up for a good life. And so my question, when we look at this particular legislation before the House, is I just don\u2019t understand why\u2014what\u2019s the motivation for this Government to actually take away support, financial support, to our most vulnerable young people in this country? It does not make any sense whatsoever. I\u2019ve never met anyone indoors, out on the street, or in my community that says, \u201CYou must take away the support to 17- and 18-year-olds because we want to get nephews off the couch\u201D. That is not real. That is not a real statement. It\u2019s not a real statement in Northcote, it\u2019s not a real statement in Napier, it is not a real statement in Northland, and it\u2019s not a real statement in Whanganui. Because New Zealanders believe that we should be investing in young people and supporting them into the right pathways. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI absolutely believe that those pathways are training pathways, they are educational pathways.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002288978fb9592a4911a8e47eae04d164f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e4f43c2eb61739400441df4e5606e03\u0022\u003EDr Vanessa Weenink\u003C/span\u003E: Good. We agree, then.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225322e0a4529b497cbc59faf0515037dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a04a771b833c02cb583abf40c2e44d5a\u0022\u003ESHANAN HALBERT\u003C/span\u003E: But that is not, Vanessa Weenink, what this Government is providing. You have to be responsible for the choices that your Government has made. That equates to 17,000 less apprentices in this country than three years ago; 100,000 young people are not engaged in education, employment, or training\u2014that includes in Christchurch. That\u2019s 35,000 young people more, under your watch, under a National - New Zealand First - ACT Government. And here you are tonight putting forward legislation that creates a worse outcome for young people and their families. And if you want to heckle me tonight, I\u2019ve got statistic after statistic after statistic to actually tell you that the choices that you\u2019re making, you\u2019re going to be responsible for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225bbc31ce3afc2fee2f368b77f0a86518\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The Speaker\u2019s not making them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225322e0a4529b497cbc59faf0515037dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002279d0c2965beb236692471ba048278f7d\u0022\u003ESHANAN HALBERT\u003C/span\u003E: Actually, the fact, tonight, that all of you sit there\u2014laugh, heckle, mock\u2014speaks to the arrogance of this Government. It absolutely reeks of the arrogance of this Government, because I believe you would never, ever walk into a panel in your own communities and say that you should be taking away the support that supports young people, no matter where you live. You wouldn\u2019t do that. You do that here because you live in a bubble, you\u2019re out of touch, and that\u2019s why New Zealanders actually believe that you are one of the worst Governments that New Zealand has ever seen, with one of the most unpopular Prime Ministers that this country has ever had.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002236e3cf8a29f0e91e716cf37275381597\u0022\u003EHon James Meager\u003C/span\u003E: How\u2019s yours going?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225322e0a4529b497cbc59faf0515037dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022199c7da76b4910b1550c78118a479b78\u0022\u003ESHANAN HALBERT\u003C/span\u003E: Well, mine\u2019s going good because the polls are much higher on my side. If we look back\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d41c9f0fc7a644fa8f065ec49d79bd28\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003EWhat about the apples? What happened to the apples?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225322e0a4529b497cbc59faf0515037dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ff38077b834063b77a31643f5166b625\u0022\u003ESHANAN HALBERT\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014two weeks and, Madam Speaker, they\u2019re encouraging me so I can absolutely go there: while you were all distracted by changing your leadership in a failed coup\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002226a37e039586f7231cb6c6f9f32bb837\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003EOh, look at him go.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225322e0a4529b497cbc59faf0515037dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022129800056912f09295b04aa227aae427\u0022\u003ESHANAN HALBERT\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and not focused on the needs of New Zealanders\u2014yes, you, Mr Chief Whip\u2014for the second time. So let\u2019s get back to reality.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227b9e461a0b3e594c7598e19cc24393be\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Let\u2019s get back to the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225322e0a4529b497cbc59faf0515037dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c29a4c2b09e8871ff862e8271f74d22e\u0022\u003ESHANAN HALBERT\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m focused on the bill, because the reality is New Zealanders want us to be focused on the cost of living. They want us to support our most vulnerable; they want us to create jobs, and to be in employment, but that is not what this Government has done. If we\u2019re talking to the bill, I go back to my opening argument: the narrative that this bill sets is that young people are doing nothing, that families should pay for their children, all of those things, and that would be a great narrative if there were actually training programmes in place for them, but the reality is that this Government has cut them, too. They\u2019re cutting benefits, they\u2019re taking away opportunities for young people, and that is why we\u2019re seeing people go offshore. They\u2019re leaving New Zealand and losing hope in New Zealand. We are going backwards in this country under this Government, and New Zealanders cannot afford another three years of this National Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022 data-id=\u0022ac2a7d13b87eed7ec8263d921f3e161d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ac2a7d13b87eed7ec8263d921f3e161d\u0022\u003EDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National\u2014Mt Roskill) (21:22)\u003C/span\u003E: One thing I know is that young people are talented and full of potential. At 18 and 19 years old, they should be building their future through education, employment, or training, not becoming dependent on welfare. Evidence shows that young people who enter the jobseeker benefit or support may spend, on average, 21 more years receiving a main benefit. We must break this cycle. This bill is an important step towards reducing long-term benefit dependency. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022df3e6766443b46819410ad4fedf34077\u0022 data-id=\u0022ac0f70ffb004cf14b2b6d624fda039e5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df3e6766443b46819410ad4fedf34077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ac0f70ffb004cf14b2b6d624fda039e5\u0022\u003ESTUART SMITH (National\u2014Kaik\u014Dura) (21:23)\u003C/span\u003E: I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d69ed7f91cb6b77d5325e67a5275e5f0\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order\u2014point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002260a97327759655862d4af69aa6acf318\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I am actually in the middle of something and I will deal to the point of order in a second.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c955bbe6309f7032c8e5e5ab415436e8\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002211cf06f10085ebc10b10029434449a34\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u002203fbf5c5c2205a15df4d931ea4b212dc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002203fbf5c5c2205a15df4d931ea4b212dc\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (21:23)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I do apologise, but it was a clarification I sought with Madam Speaker previously, because the mic isn\u2019t necessarily sometimes\u2014I did seek the Speaker\u2019s permission, previously as a Chair, that I am able to raise my voice, and the Chair at that stage said, \u201CAs long as it\u2019s not louder than Tom Rutherford, it is fine.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI just want to seek your clarification, Madam Speaker, that it\u2019s the general convention that, yes, while we are looking at whoever got up first, I would like to go on the record that, in this particular case, I did get up\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dec72f064279bc25774955371b5ac527\u0022\u003EDr Carlos Cheung\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, Stuart was faster this time, I\u2019m thinking.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022563facdc1c4d2f242c6cfaae82832961\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E:Questionable\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ffbc9198d7403f64f4a168b7965d0ccc\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Points of order are heard in silence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f476b66e4eee0ec453a6f43ae697e5e5\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014we can review the video but I think, in addition to that, I would like to seek your clarification, Madam Speaker, that while anyone can get up to bid for that call, it is usually the convention that that being the Opposition call and the Opposition time that, in some ways, Opposition will be given preference when we\u2019re looking at whoever is able to bid for that particular time. I just want to seek your clarification on that, Madam Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225b01bc1811a849d40f7ee48a09365e29\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The call is given by the person in the Chair, at their discretion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill be now read a third time\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 38\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022cb9cfef0529ea3419bb7e54bcaddac39\u0022\u003ESerious Fraud Office Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022db2755fa0f8c63ff8cb395c44136872d\u0022\u003ELegislative Statement\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u00227115f6d84adcb71b17c9b3b7676f52ab\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227115f6d84adcb71b17c9b3b7676f52ab\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police) (21:26)\u003C/span\u003E: on behalf of the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Justice\u003C/span\u003E: I present a legislative statement on the Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222e3a9bacc44bc06c253bc60037b73985\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ae79a334f700a98bfbe786c69c2473c0\u0022\u003ESecond Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022086360bad4f163feb3757e6be579c47b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022086360bad4f163feb3757e6be579c47b\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police) (21:26)\u003C/span\u003E: on behalf of the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Justice\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill be now read a second time\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill makes targeted changes to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) Act 1990 so that the Serious Fraud Office can operate more effectively in the digital age. Since the Act was passed 36 years ago, technology has dramatically changed; information is stored in the cloud and remote digital servers rather than on paper in office cabinets. While other legislation has been updated, the SFO Act has not kept pace. The bill updates the SFO\u2019s search warrant framework so that it is more aligned with the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. These targeted amendments will ensure the SFO can move effectively, obtain evidence of fraud that is stored digitally and remotely on online servers, by specifying that the SFO can search a thing as well as a place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill also makes the application process for a warrant more efficient by enabling the SFO director to apply for a search warrant orally in certain circumstances, and then an application for a search warrant can be considered by an issuing officer, court registrars, and authorised justices of the peace rather than only a judge. Again, this change mirrors the requirements in the Search and Surveillance Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill will also enable the SFO to access necessary services like electricity when conducting a search, and to exclude someone from a search site if there are reasonable grounds to suspect the person might compromise a search. The bill also updates the legal tests in the SFO Act for the courts to determine the admissibility of evidence that may not have been obtained according to the rules. The bill changes the tests to reflect the more recent and widely applied test from the Evidence Act 2006. This provides for a more balanced test, allowing the court to consider a range of factors when determining whether evidence can be included in a prosecution.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019d like to acknowledge and thank the Justice Committee for its thoughtful consideration of this bill. The committee made several recommendations to strengthen the safeguards in the bill by aligning some of the requirements with provisions in the Search and Surveillance Act. These relate to remote access searches, oral warrants, and the return and disposal of things and documents. The committee also recommended changes to better accommodate digital and remote searches. These are often very time-consuming and require more than one entry into a device. The committee recommended allowing an issuing officer to provide for extended timeframes for executing search warrants, and multiple entries under a warrant, if appropriate. This is in line with the Search and Surveillance Act. Finally, the committee recommended a minor change to the wording around the use of force to update and modernise the language in the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWithout legislative change, there is a serious risk the SFO may not be able to hold criminals to account and prevent further victims of the most serious and complex forms of fraud. Ultimately, this bill provides the SFO with the modern investigative tools it needs to protect New Zealand from serious fraud and corruption and the harm it causes. Behind the figures of the millions of dollars stolen through this insidious crime are everyday New Zealanders\u2014workers and retirees\u2014who have lost their savings, and businesses that have suffered significant financial losses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Government believes it must act to ensure the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has the tools it needs to both hold serious fraudsters to account and to protect New Zealanders from them. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e1833921e97aa3369f7d4fdd1656914c\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022 data-id=\u00221f3db26a5fd96630264c15169fd55408\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221f3db26a5fd96630264c15169fd55408\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (21:30)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wish to draw the House\u2019s attention to the date of the original Act here\u2014it\u2019s the Serious Fraud Office Act 1990. I would invite all members of the House to cast their minds back to 1990, except I know that\u2019s impossible for Mr Rutherford over there. It was the year I got married, so 36 years ago, and the world was a different place. I think I sent my first email in 1993 and the World Wide Web\u2014the internet\u2014was only becoming a thing around about 1997, 1998, 1999, that sort of date.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe world has changed significantly since the Serious Fraud Office Act was first put into place, hence the need for this bill to update how the Serious Fraud Office may operate. It\u2019s giving the Serious Fraud Office permissions to operate in particular ways, particularly around digital searches. That\u2019s a very necessary thing, and the Labour Party continues to support this bill. As someone who wasn\u2019t on the select committee, I do note that the bill went through the select committee unanimously. That doesn\u2019t always happen, but this does seem to be a bill that, so far, most people in this House support.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do want to just raise one issue, though\u2014well, not so much an issue; it\u2019s an injunction to all the parties in this House in terms of the sorts of searches that are being enabled by this new legislation; the new powers that the Serious Fraud Office has. It is incumbent on this House and Opposition parties, in particular, to make sure that the Parliament is held to account\u2014so, speaking to my National Party colleagues over there: it will be your role after the election this year of holding this House to account.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut it is actually all of our jobs in this House to keep an eye on the various enforcement agencies that this nation has. We do need to monitor what the police are doing, what the Serious Fraud Office is doing, what any of the regulatory agencies are doing. That is all of our jobs, and it\u2019s a very important one. By and large, those agencies operate very, very well indeed, and the people in them are committed to doing the best they can, but sometimes things do go wrong.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGiven these new powers, we will need to keep an eye on what the Serious Fraud Office is doing and as we pass this bill through the House, I invited members of this House to take up that role seriously. We commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022773354b3a9f8b221f38a568357ec513b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022773354b3a9f8b221f38a568357ec513b\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (21:33)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party as the Green Party\u2019s justice spokesperson to also support the Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill. Yes, I do think that considering the number of bills that are going through the Justice Committee\u2014of which there are many, as many members here who are on the Justice Committee could attest\u2014this was one of the bills that probably had more collegial views and perspectives when it comes to the Serious Fraud Office and the updates that we\u2019re seeing in this particular bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust to capture some of the things that this bill does, first of all, this bill is an update in response to, I believe, the Court of Appeal case of \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\u0022\u003ECrown v Pikia\u003C/span\u003E. Again, one of the things that we mentioned in the first reading, and I believe this is something that both myself as well as the Hon Dr Duncan Webb have spoken to, is that while we do support this bill, one of the issues we\u2019re seeing is the Government\u2014and not just simply this Government; Governments in general play this top trump of trying to catch up to the judiciary when something was ruled in the judiciary and, suddenly, a new bill is introduced in the House to try and plug a particular gap.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the questions that was proposed during the first reading on this bill was: what could Government or Parliament do in general that takes a more proactive approach when it comes to addressing something like this, which is an update in nature but doesn\u2019t necessarily need to respond or be reactive all the time to something that the judiciary has ruled on? I think this is something that, for example, we\u2019re seeing in the Statutes Bill, we\u2019re seeing regulatory systems bills being introduced in this House\u2014they are non-contentious in nature. They provide the necessary housekeeping updates that we\u2019re seeing within legislation. How are we able to potentially use some of those to be able to update, in a collegial manner, some of the Acts like this to prevent some of the things that we\u2019re seeing within\u2014that, potentially, is proactive as opposed to reactive?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other aspect of that is also when we are looking at a bill such as this. Of course, when we\u2019re looking at some of the bills in response to rulings by a judge, I think it will be remiss of me to also mention the Climate Change (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill, which is one of the few instances where the Parliament has actively intervened in an active court case as opposed to what we\u2019re seeing here in the Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill, which is in response to something that\u2019s already ruled. I think that is something that, as a Parliament, we do need to consider seriously in terms of the separation of powers, the three powers, and also the principle of comity. I think, in this case, when we look at the Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill, one could argue that there was the right balance being struck when this bill was introduced that allowed the court to take its natural path to reach a decision before the Government intervened.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOn to the specifics of this bill\u2014again, the Minister has mentioned already some of the updates. The most important part is to more effectively obtain digital devices and evidence stored in the cloud. This is something that we discussed quite a bit during the select committee stage. Most importantly when it comes to the idea of when we are looking at search warrants or search and surveillance of physical objects, they are often considered in situ. They are at a physical location here, you are able to tangibly take it, so there are a couple of things that needed to be teased out by the select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFirst of all, when you are looking at something that is accessed by the cloud, how many times is SFO able to access it? Is it once; is it multiple times? What is required to be determined as part of the search warrant in those instances? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESecondly, while it is in the cloud, when we\u2019re looking at aspects of privacy\u2014and we did have conversations around privacy\u2014from a privacy perspective and from a cloud data storage perspective, what is the jurisdiction when we\u2019re looking at the cloud being in an offshore jurisdiction?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022443f23de4cbd464f91833e6c466c98c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eb8a4f59d4dc08e93a6c6c6d5ca0a518\u0022\u003ETodd Stephenson\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s the data centre.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e6002bea6327bd2f3cc837a0e91bbb03\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: The data centre\u2014well, yes. I\u2019m so glad that Todd Stephenson has mentioned the word \u201Cdata centre\u201D, because from the perspective of data centres, that is important when we\u2019re looking at the concept of data sovereignty in Aotearoa New Zealand. However, \u201Cdata centre\u201D is not the same thing as \u201CAI data centre\u201D, in which case an AI data centre, in this particular case, does not provide the kind of data sovereignty, or even what we\u2019re seeing here in this bill, but I think the distinction needs to be clearly made.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other challenge that we had, and that was discussed during the select committee stage, is\u2014you know, I mentioned whether the cloud is in an offshore jurisdiction. But what happens if what needs to be searched, the item itself\u2014i.e. let\u2019s say a computer is offshore; the physical object itself is offshore storage and SFO needs to access it remotely here in Aotearoa New Zealand to a cloud, or to remote access a physical object in an offshore jurisdiction to a cloud in response to, let\u2019s say, a serious fraud case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThese are some of the things that have been discussed, and I think these are some of the things that require further engagement with the Minister during the upcoming committee of the whole House to get better clarity, and I\u2019m anticipating that Ministers are able to prepare for some of the questions I will be asking. These are some of the things that need further discussion, because, again, some of these questions did not receive a fulsome response at the select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the other things that is also updated in this particular bill is, I guess, in some ways the consistency of language. Again, this is something that requires further conversation and engagement with the Minister during the committee stage. This is the changes to the language around \u201Creasonable force\u201D. In the original drafting of this bill, it talks about using reasonable force in respect of any property for the purpose of carrying out the search and any lawful seizure. However, in that particular case, reasonable force did not specify reasonable force when it comes to entry to a particular property.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs part of the updates in this bill\u2014and this is where we need to potentially get some examples during the committee stage\u2014is what is the extent of that particular entry when we\u2019re looking at the use of reasonable force. Previously, when looking at this particular drafting, the assumption was that when you\u2019re using reasonable force for search and seizure, you are already permitted to enter a particular property. But with the update, which, understandably, aligns with the current section 12C(2)(b) of the Search and Surveillance Act, it does align with that in terms of the use of reasonable force for entry as well. However, this, again, is something that I think we need to have a further conversation on in the role of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, one of the other main questions that did come up when it comes to this particular bill is\u2014actually there are two additional things\u2014when the SFO is present and is able to conduct some of these, are they, under the current understanding of the Search and Surveillance Act, allowed to have other people there? In which case, while there could be warrant searches by the SFO, who else is able to be brought alongside them\u2014either the police or other enforcement officers? A lot of bills that have been introduced have enforcement officer capabilities\u2014the Planning Bill, the Natural Environment Bill, and in the current drafting of the New Zealand \u2013 India free-trade agreement bill as well. So we are seeing some of that. Again, this is another question that needs to be teased out during the committee stage. So, with that, the Green Party does support this bill, and we\u2019re looking forward engaging with the Minister further in the committee stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022443f23de4cbd464f91833e6c466c98c0\u0022 data-id=\u002250be122c25fb6c80c16a203a70e431f6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022443f23de4cbd464f91833e6c466c98c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002250be122c25fb6c80c16a203a70e431f6\u0022\u003ETODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (21:43)\u003C/span\u003E: It gives me pleasure to rise on behalf of ACT to speak on the Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill. I was lucky enough to be part of the Justice Committee, which considered this bill. I want to thank the 19 submitters who make submissions in relation to the bill. A number of changes obviously came out as a result of those submissions and the select committee\u2019s consideration.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn my short litigation career, I was defence counsel in a Serious Fraud Office (SFO) case. In that time, all the documents were actually paper-based, and I think we\u2019ve come a long way, as the updates in this bill show. Records are now more electronically stored and so this bill does update things to make sure that the SFO has the power for the modern world. It also\u2014and I think this is really important\u2014more closely aligns the powers of the SFO with the existing Search and Surveillance Act. I think having enforcement agencies with the same powers is very important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo, yes, as has already been said, this bill has been unanimously supported out of the select committee and I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022 data-id=\u0022587a49cde92b49196ed45ddfa9425b49\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022587a49cde92b49196ed45ddfa9425b49\u0022\u003EHon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs) (21:44)\u003C/span\u003E: I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill in the second reading. It is incredibly important\u2014and we have said it previously in this House, regarding our ability to respond to serious and organised crime\u2014that we have to be able to move faster and more effectively to combat the enemy that is common to so many of us. This is about our ability to move at the speed of money, which is what the offenders that we are dealing with are doing. We have until recently been constrained at the pace of law, and giving the Serious Fraud Office more modernised legislation that gives us the powers to respond to the very highly technical way in which these offenders operate is critically important to our effectiveness and, therefore, New Zealand First commends the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e66329e431ea47019b41524c6ef2954a\u0022 data-id=\u002227e1c34821bbd1b858c0cd85a3abc485\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e66329e431ea47019b41524c6ef2954a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002227e1c34821bbd1b858c0cd85a3abc485\u0022\u003ECELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (21:45)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to support the Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill. I was not on the Justice Committee to hear all the details. I am therefore probably one who is highly amused by the constant reference to \u201Cthing\u201D. I love the Old English derivation\u2014thing. It used to be \u201Cdevices\u201D, it might be \u201Cdata\u201D, it might be \u201Cequipment \u201C, but, no, we are going for \u201Cthing\u201D. I do understand why but, just on a lighter note while we\u2019re working our way through the wee hours, I thought I would share that amusement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EReally, this bill exists because the courts told us that our fraud laws were broken. The Court of Appeal found that the Serious Fraud Office is noted in the search warrant regime as unreasonable and a significant overreach against people\u2019s rights, so this bill updates the 36-year-old Act. There are an awful lot of changes in data, in internet access, in just the speed of fraud in those nearly four decades.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to acknowledge the submission from the New Zealand Law Society. They support modernising the Act but very carefully pushed for more care\u2014full oral warrant safeguards, tighter use-of-force wording, and clarity that none of these powers authorised force against a person. Even when the target is white-collar offending, the legal profession\u2019s instinct is sound about protecting rights.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFraud costs this country billions every year, and the trend should worry every member of this House. In 2003, a long time ago, the Serious Fraud Office put expected fraud losses at about $200 million. By 2023, that figure was roughly $5 billion, a 25-fold increase. But it\u2019s not abstract, that $5 billion. Behind that number, there are real families who have lost retirement savings, small business gutted by fake invoices, friends of mine who have been scammed out of their small retirement savings, and charities that have been quietly hollowed out, sometimes over years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand used to sit at fourth equal in the world on Transparency International\u2019s Corruption Perceptions Index. We\u2019ve slipped to fourth. That may be as much about political donations as corporate fraud, of course, and the two are not unrelated. The Serious Fraud Office alleged\u2014alleged\u2014that a $100,000 donation in 2017 and a similar donation in 2018 to National were funnelled through sham donors\u2014multiple individuals who hid the identity of the true donor. The Serious Fraud Office also alleged that between 2015 and 2020 nearly three-quarters of a million dollars in political donations was redirected into a New Zealand First Foundation bank account rather than the official party account. No politicians were charged. The Court of Appeal dismissed all charges. However, the Court of Appeal explicitly noted in its judgment that these cases exposed major structural weaknesses and legal loopholes in New Zealand\u2019s Electoral Act regarding how political money is tracked. If we want real democracy and we want openness and transparency, then we need to not just fix the Serious Fraud Office; we need to fix the New Zealand Electoral Act too. Talking tough on crime is never about white-collar crime.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022 data-id=\u002249165f3c5bc219c8b0abff2f3d6238c2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002249165f3c5bc219c8b0abff2f3d6238c2\u0022\u003ETOM RUTHERFORD (National\u2014Bay of Plenty) (21:50)\u003C/span\u003E: I might not have been here in 1990 when the Serious Fraud Office Act was first empowered and brought into legislation, but I certainly was a member of the Justice Committee that scrutinised this bill, and there was unanimous support for the recommended amendments and changes we made, so let\u2019s get it done. I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022 data-id=\u0022805687ec8ae8f2cc5c579cfb02aba89f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022805687ec8ae8f2cc5c579cfb02aba89f\u0022\u003EDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (21:50)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill. Labour supports this bill, because the Serious Fraud Office needs investigative tools that reflect how serious and complex fraud is actually carried out today. The Serious Fraud Office Act dates back to 1990. Tom Rutherford\u2014he might not have been here. I was at primary school. There were people getting married\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b3b2d78a01ce9e86683f00b5354e266b\u0022\u003ETom Rutherford\u003C/span\u003E: As a teacher.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002292303352b6a95586b877fcbed816f8ad\u0022\u003EDAN ROSEWARNE\u003C/span\u003E: Ha, ha! Absolutely.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBack then, an investigation was much more likely to involve paper records, filing cabinets, bank statements, documents, and fax machines, all locked away in a cabinet somewhere in the office or at home. But that\u2019s not the world investigators are dealing with now. The evidence may be on a cellphone; on an encrypted device; in a cloud account, even; or spread across multiple computer systems in several different places, and it sits behind multiple passwords and encryption keys. It may be copied, moved, deleted, or hidden away quickly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill responds to the reality by making it easier for the Serious Fraud Office to obtain digital devices or evidence that\u2019s actually stored in a cloud set-up, modernising search warrant applications, expanding the powers available when warrants are executed, and aligning the treatment of unlawfully obtained evidence with the Evidence Act. These are necessary changes that meet the modern environment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe should not expect an agency tasked with investigating some of the most serious and complex fraud in New Zealand to operate with legislation designed before cloud computing, smart phones, online banking, or even cryptocurrency applications these days. There\u2019s been an enormous growth in electronically stored information, so the law needs to keep up. Keeping up with that technology does not simply mean giving investigators broader powers and leaving it there; it also means making sure those powers are clear, properly targeted, and matched with the safeguards that work in the same digital environment. It\u2019s important that we get that balance right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill starts by updating the language of the principal Act. Just reading through the bill, clause 4 introduces the definitions of \u201Caccess\u201D or \u201Caccess information\u201D, \u201Ccomputer system\u201D, \u201Cremote access search\u201D\u2014and a \u201Cthing\u201D was already mentioned in an earlier contribution. The definition of a \u201Cthing\u201D will include an intangible thing such as an email address or access information for an internet data storage facility. A \u201Cremote access search\u201D is defined as a search of something \u201Csuch as an internet data storage facility that does not have a physical address that a person can enter and search\u201D\u2014as defined within the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat may sound like a fairly dry interpretation clause, but it does a lot of the heavy lifting within this bill, and it takes the law beyond the traditional idea that a search is always a physical activity. An investigator no longer necessarily arrives at a building or walks through a door like they might have in 1990 and opens a draw. A search might instead involve accessing a cloud account or another digital resource that cannot sensibly be pinned to one physical address. It\u2019s a practical recognition of the way information is stored today, but it also raises an important jurisdiction issue. A person being investigated might be in New Zealand, and the account might be administered in New Zealand, for that matter, but the cloud provider might be overseas. The underlying information might be held in a data centre in Australia, even, or Singapore, or the United States, or actually distributed across several jurisdictions. Although the investigation begins here, it might not be obvious where the search legally takes place. That is something that I intend to return to during the committee of the whole House. I want to hear clearly how the Government expects these powers to operate where information is stored offshore, and where the practical and legal limits sit when a New Zealand warrant reaches an overseas cloud environment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 6 replaces section 10 of the Serious Fraud Office Act and sets out the process for applying for a search warrant. The director must set out the grounds for the application, describe the place or other thing to be searched, describe evidential material that is believed to be there, and state the period for which the warrant is sought. That actually came up in the select committee on multiple occasions, about how they were going to flesh that out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe director must also disclose known applications made within the previous three months involving the same place or thing, along with the outcome of those applications. That is important. The broader and more technically complex a search power becomes, the more important it is that the warrant application defines what investigators are looking for and where they actually expect to find it. For a physical warrant, that may be relatively straightforward. The application might identify a particular office or a warehouse, computer, or filing cabinet. But it becomes more difficult within a cloud-based system. A single account may hold huge volumes of information assembled over a long period. Personal material may sit alongside business information, and relevant evidence may sit alongside information that has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual investigation. The challenge then is to ensure that the description of the thing being searched is specific enough to place a meaningful boundary, a central boundary, around that search.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 6 also allows an issuing officer to accept an oral application, including by telephone or personal appearance, where the delay caused by requiring a written application would compromise the effectiveness of the search. The same information required for a written application must still be supplied, and the issuing officer must record the grounds as soon as practicable. There\u2019s a sound operational reason for that provision: because digital evidence can actually move quite quickly, as we all know, and a delay may provide an opportunity for information to be deleted, altered, transferred, or made inaccessible. At the same time, an oral application should not become a shortcut around that proper scrutiny. The select committee has strengthened the process by requiring all of the information that would be required in writing to still be given to the issuing officer and by requiring the grounds for it to be recorded. So the bill also deals with the practical difficulty of searching large quantities of digital material.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll also point out that an issuing officer may also authorise a warrant to be executed more than once where that is required for the purpose of the search. Warrants will generally run for no more than 14 days, but the issuing officer may specify a period for up to 30 days where a longer period is necessary for that execution.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe warrant must state the number of times\u2014just reading through the bill here\u2014it may be executed, if multiple executions are authorised. The committee\u2019s commentary at the start of the bill explains the practical problem: law enforcement agencies may be dealing with many devices and large volumes of cloud information, and the time needed to download and copy the data and do backups must be completed. That all takes time, and applications that require further procedures before the access is needed\u2014again, the more we go through this bill, the case for that modernisation is clear. The bill also improves the powers available for when a warrant is executed, and it allows for the access to computer systems and data storage devices, and then also other types of intangible material. It\u2019s a good bill, and I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cf22a832d14a4c99ab5dfd16e24446e5\u0022 data-id=\u00225852b4540ba704431a15cc93287c1c0b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf22a832d14a4c99ab5dfd16e24446e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225852b4540ba704431a15cc93287c1c0b\u0022\u003ERIMA NAKHLE (National\u2014Takanini) (22:01)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of this bill as well. It\u2019s a good bill, a sign of the times\u2014where we\u2019re going and what we need to do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn select committee, we received 19 submissions. I\u2019m grateful to all of those that did submit, including Mr Max Marshall, who submits on a lot of our justice bills and always reminds us that justice delayed is justice denied. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022 data-id=\u00221cb0e45aa27739322bf1261e998b63d1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221cb0e45aa27739322bf1261e998b63d1\u0022\u003EDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (22:01)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wasn\u2019t on the select committee that considered this bill\u2014the Justice Committee\u2014but having heard from some colleagues and their lengthy contributions\u2014much appreciated\u2014I feel like I have learnt somewhat a little bit more about this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ELabour will be supporting this bill, which is obviously in contrast to what we have been contemplating for the vast majority of this period of urgency, where most of our time has been spent here talking about both the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill, which, of course, was the opposite of supporting\u2014we\u2019re very much opposed to those bills. At this very late stage, here we are with a bill in front of us that sounds very sensible. As my colleague the Hon Dr\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225322e0a4529b497cbc59faf0515037dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002211b163b5aae268db61db007f9eb7501f\u0022\u003EShanan Halbert\u003C/span\u003E: Finally, some sense!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d43b492de61d85fe1d79b5ab5b7ffe5e\u0022\u003EDr TRACEY McLELLAN\u003C/span\u003E: I was going to call her something else, but the Hon Deb Russell had said that 1990 was the last time that this bill was updated, and that sort of sent me down memory lane a little bit when I was thinking about what the number one song in 1990 was and what I was doing in 1990\u2014hearing stories of other people being not born or being at primary school, and thinking to myself, \u201CHmm, I\u2019m sure that I was somewhere doing something fabulous as a 20-year-old me.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnyhow, this bill we will be supporting. It\u2019s quite interesting insofar as its background. It is largely, as a response of the Court of Appeal\u2019s criticism of \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ER v Pikia\u003C/span\u003E in 2024, where the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) filed seven charges against Roger Pikia, including obtaining by deception and corruptly accepting a gift as an agent. Whilst there\u2019s quite a bit of information about that, the gist of that story\u2014that yarn, so to speak\u2014is that 118 of the 203 exercises that the SFO powers examined were found to be unlawful. The court was very scathing, therefore, about the conduct and rightly so. That provided the impetus, I suppose, to be where we are today to provide the SFO with their much more modern tools in a much more modern world that communicates in a very different way, and where\u2014as has been said\u2014the types of fraud that could be investigated are carried out in a very different format using very different mechanisms that require different tools.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe select committee clearly made several changes, as often happens at that process. That is why we have select committees. Again, whilst we\u2019re here in urgency, sometimes that opportunity isn\u2019t always afforded to every bill, and we\u2019ve had several examples of\u2014very recently\u2014where snafus have had happened, mistakes have come to light, people have missed out on their winter energy payments. All sorts of things can happen because the select committee process wasn\u2019t allowed to happen, and, therefore, things that could have been prevented weren\u2019t, and real people paid real consequences as a result of that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn this particular case, with the Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill, the select committee made several changes to the bill. All were accepted unanimously, which only demonstrates further, therefore, that they were genuine things that could have improved the bill and did improve the bill and updated the bill. I won\u2019t go through the list of all of those changes, but my colleague Dan Rosewarne touched on a couple of them, and they revolve around remote access, they revolve around additional requirements for remote access warrants, and I should imagine that the select committee process was somewhat interesting insofar as having people having to turn their minds to some of the things that we take for granted and some of those different ways of living life and how they apply to not only to making our life easier but also to how they can be used for nefarious reasons in terms of committing fraud.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs I said, we are happy to support this bill. There are some things\u2014several things\u2014that we will be raising at the committee of the whole House stage. There are possibly even some amendments, but there\u2019s certainly a lot of points that colleagues and I will be raising over the next two or three hours as we investigate that stage of this bill. In the meantime, we commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022739b3bbed7fe4186aa30494700144b3a\u0022 data-id=\u0022c1fbcef485a7660fe40d7bd0fa7fc7dd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022739b3bbed7fe4186aa30494700144b3a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c1fbcef485a7660fe40d7bd0fa7fc7dd\u0022\u003EPAULO GARCIA (National\u2014New Lynn) (22:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill provides additional tools for law enforcement; it is a further piece in the puzzle of restoring law and order, which is a priority under this Government. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u00226fdc5e30a2aea3a36364021e0d210845\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226fdc5e30a2aea3a36364021e0d210845\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (22:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. This is actually quite a serious bill, and it deserves serious attention because it\u2019s, essentially, about powers of search and seizure. It\u2019s easy to kind of gloss over them and say what some people say, which is \u201Cjust more tools in the toolbox\u201D, but these tools in this toolbox enable a most serious invasion both of privacy and of house and home. We need to be very careful that the measures are appropriate, proportionate, and workable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs some speakers have touched on, fraud, in particular, raises real challenges because it\u2019s not like you\u2019re looking for a bloody knife, or a smoking gun, or blood stains\u2014you\u2019re looking for information. Information in this modern world\u2014the modern world that seems so difficult for Deborah Russell, who seems to wish email never existed, and I can sympathise with that in some regards\u2014can be stored in all kinds of places and devices, whether it be a good old-fashioned notebook\u2014which, actually, is still often a critical part of information in fraud cases\u2014or an email, or a mobile phone, or a series of messages on Telegram or Facebook Messenger, or whatever it might be, where we can see that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs has been noted, the case of \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ER v Pikia\u003C/span\u003E was the impetus for this piece of legislation. The interesting thing\u2014and I hope I haven\u2019t missed something; well, maybe I hope I have missed something\u2014about Pikia was apart from the overuse and broad nature of search warrants\u2014so, search warrants were issued not quite randomly but frequently and extremely broadly. The general rule, when you\u2019re going to search someone or something, is you make it specific and targeted and as limited as is necessary to obtain the evidence you\u2019re after. Whereas in that case, the court found that the warrants lacked specificity\u2014they didn\u2019t even name an offence\u2014they just said, \u201CWe think there might have been serious or complex fraud.\u201D, not that there was documents used to procure a pecuniary advantage or that there had been an actual fraud under section ABC of the Crimes Act. It was just a general \u201Cwe want to have a look,\u201D, and they were frequent. They were called \u201Cunnecessary, unreasonable, and oppressive\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other thing with that case, though, was this\u2014and this is the thing that perplexes me\u2014you\u2019ve got a need to tidy up the search warrant part of the Act, but section 9 of the Serious Fraud Office Act is the section that says the office can require someone to attend and deliver documents. I\u2019ve seen this in operation, where they say, \u201CYou need to come to our office and give us all financial records of this company, and all affiliated companies, for the past five years.\u201D It\u2019s actually really, really onerous to do, and it\u2019s deeply problematic if you don\u2019t comply. What they were doing was saying, \u201CYou\u2019ve got to deliver up to us your mobile phone and your laptop.\u201D That\u2019s not what section 9 says. It says you must deliver documents, and whichever way you cut it, a cellphone isn\u2019t a document. It might contain documents, but it\u2019s not a document. That was a real problem in that case, and that is actually the crux, in many ways, of why that prosecution failed, and why, after many years, including the Crown trying to get a Supreme Court hearing and being declined, it was ultimately discharged\u2014all charges were dropped in 2024. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m not sure that the section 9 issue has been tidied up, and that\u2019s actually a real worry for me, because there\u2019s been a focus on getting the search warrants consistent with the Search and Surveillance Act, and that\u2019s actually quite good\u2014although I have some concerns, particularly around unlawful searches. But if the key, clunky bit of the Act, the most outdated bit of the Serious Fraud Office Act, is that cellphones aren\u2019t documents, then we\u2019ve got a real problem.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll come to it in committee stage and the Minister can answer it, but it may be that the new definition of \u201Cthing\u201D, which is a really weird definition of \u201Cthing\u201D, in clause 4(1), tidies this up. It says a thing \u201Cincludes an intangible thing\u201D, and I can get that. A thing could include an email, which has no tangible form, but it also says: \u201Cfor example, an email address or access information\u201D\u2014a passcode is a classic one, right? This is a really strange thing to call a \u201Cthing\u201D, because whilst it\u2019s information, it\u2019s really not a natural language use of \u201Cthing\u201D. I don\u2019t know if that\u2019s trying to get around it, or some other part of the definitions system, but if there\u2019s a tidy-up there which means they\u2019ve amended the Act, which affects section 9 without actually affecting section 9, I\u2019d be very interested to know about that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis was one of those pieces of legislation where we had a number of submissions on it, but to be fair, most people understood. I do want to recognise, and I think in any case where there\u2019s a search, people need to understand how really confronting that can be. You\u2019ve got to remember: this is not searching the house of someone who is guilty; this is searching the house of someone who may have committed a crime which is being investigated. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other thing you\u2019ve got remember is this\u2014and in fact, I know people who this has happened to, where one family member might be a rogue, but that family member might also have a spouse and children in the same dwelling. Whilst there is provision in this bill that a search should be conducted at a reasonable time, searches are often conducted at times which are reasonable for the searchers, but not particularly reasonable for the people who are being searched\u20147 o\u2019clock in the morning, to ensure that everyone\u2019s at home. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EYou can kind of see why it happens, but when someone comes in and starts pulling books off your shelves to see if there\u2019s anything\u2019s hidden behind, and so on\u2014the other thing, of course, is this: caution and constraint is needed, because the first thing that they want to do when they\u2019re conducting a search is essentially to secure the area. The last thing they want is someone to nip into the back office and hit \u201Cerase\u201D. It\u2019s a little bit movie-like, but it\u2019s not an entirely impossible scenario. They need to secure the premises, or at least that relevant part of it, but in doing so, they\u2019re excluding the people\u2014and it is often homes\u2014who live in the home from the premises. Whilst that might be sitting at the kitchen table\u2014which, in and of itself, if you\u2019ve got people searching your home, and you\u2019re there with your kids, essentially being told to sit down at the kitchen table and not move, that\u2019s hard enough as it is\u2014but it may even be that you\u2019ve got to leave the premises entirely.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo we do need to be cautious, and I run through those scenarios because I think we too often\u2014we watch too much \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ENCIS\u003C/span\u003E, right? The heroes are the guys bashing down the door because there are some evil villains that are truly reprehensible. Serious fraud is a different kettle of fish, and serious fraud is serious. It\u2019s a really bad thing. But, at the same time, we\u2019ve got to recognise that there is collateral damage in prosecuting these particular cases, and that\u2019s why we need to have a search framework where the search is targeted, limited, and appropriate, but also effective. That\u2019s where the supervision, that we\u2019ll talk about a bit more in committee stage, is really necessary. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe do support this bill, but I\u2019m hoping\u2014and imagining\u2014officials will have heard some of my speech, and listened to perhaps some of the interesting bits, and they\u2019ll be well prepared to talk about that section 9 issue in particular.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ab32b09663ea48b199aa59e4d88f77e4\u0022 data-id=\u00227dd56710fda312d8b01de94443053426\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ab32b09663ea48b199aa59e4d88f77e4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227dd56710fda312d8b01de94443053426\u0022\u003ETIM COSTLEY (National\u2014\u014Ctaki) (22:17)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker, I support this legislation. I\u2019m proud to be part of a Government that is shifting the dial on law and order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e641dc4bf8aa41b0bd8a29676c8ba9a6\u0022 data-id=\u0022568f84142ed60d3ad61c33e295a5fed6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e641dc4bf8aa41b0bd8a29676c8ba9a6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022568f84142ed60d3ad61c33e295a5fed6\u0022\u003EREUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour\u2014Christchurch East) (22:17)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s an absolute privilege to be able to stand and take this last call. I\u2019m just pleased that it\u2019s going to allow us to make sure that we\u2019re not missing any of the detail as we prepare for the committee of the whole House stage. It is a very serious\u2014no pun intended\u2014issue that we\u2019re talking about here, and I think it would be remiss of us to try to rush through this, even though we are, it would seem, in agreement on this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019re in agreement because it\u2019s a really important issue, and we\u2019ve taken the time through the process so far, previously when it\u2019s been in the House, and also when it\u2019s come through to select committee. I think it\u2019s the same here, in this reading of it, and as we prepare to get into committee of the whole House, too, that we ensure that we are actually stepping through this, and taking the time to be across the detail. When we\u2019re not across the detail, or we do rush things through, we\u2019ve seen many recent examples of the negative impacts that that has on members of the public, and the detrimental impacts that can have on communities\u2014much as was referenced in the speech from my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, who spoke about some of the unintended consequences of prosecuting or executing search warrants on people who may be in the same house or place as the person who\u2019s having that search warrant executed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think the policy objective\u2014the four key things of what we\u2019re trying to do here\u2014is to ensure that the Serious Fraud Office can obtain the information it needs, and if you are going to be prosecuting, you are going to need to obtain that information. It\u2019s really important to ensure the process for obtaining a search warrant is efficient, and there are a lot of reasons for that, and a number of colleagues have spoken in detail about how the way the world operates has changed. That can sound like an old-fashioned, nostalgic thing, but it\u2019s actually just the reality of where we are and how we operate in this day and age. That sounds like an old-fashioned thing too!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThirdly, it\u2019s to ensure that the Serious Fraud Office can execute a warrant effectively and with minimal risk to safety. That\u2019s a really important one too. That\u2019s the safety of those people from the Serious Fraud Office; it\u2019s the safety of the people who may be being impacted by the search; and, ultimately, I guess, it\u2019s the safety of the information, too, and that comes back to the timeliness piece as well. It\u2019s also to ensure the test applied to unlawfully obtained evidence is appropriate, and consistent with the test applied in criminal proceedings more generally. I think that is also a very important piece as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust conscious of the fact that the clock is running down on my time to step through some of the things that we\u2019ve highlighted as being issues through this bill, and that we really need to explore, I did want to just touch on, and a number of us have, the ability for the Serious Fraud Office to, now, search things as well as places. And, I guess, one of the other important points around that is that there will also be platforms or apps or things on devices where data and information that could, actually, become key components of a successful prosecution will be stored; so ensuring that the Serious Fraud Office can get in there and get that in a really timely fashion. Some of those platforms that material disappears by itself; other platforms, it\u2019s very easy for people to be able to make that information disappear even if they don\u2019t have access to the device that the Serious Fraud Office or the person executing the search warrant has access to. So that timeliness, that speed is incredibly important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI guess, when we look at how long it\u2019s been\u201436 years\u2014since this legislation was updated, and we and we reflect on how much the world has changed, how much technology has changed, how much the devices have changed, the ways we interact with each other, communicate, transact; it\u2019s only natural for us to need to take the time to step very, very carefully through this legislation to make sure that, at this, almost, final pass, at the committee of the whole House, that what we are putting in place here is a framework that we can, hand on heart, say in this House, \u201CWe took the time, under urgency, to make sure that we didn\u2019t rush this process; we got it right and we made New Zealand a safer and less fraudulent space as a result.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a second time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b329e884cfcebde4ba81704a0f5ec2c4\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e2ace5f8f5673ec1c7afc8527cdd3a2d\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u002217c3155ff6ae24891427c62eb34b4f0f\u0022\u003EPart 1 Principle Act amended, and Schedule 1\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227f0b473b2dd66778964521735da13f58\u0022\u003EHon Dr Duncan Webb\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. There being no Minister available, I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the House adjourn\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251219ebe8fe98d34841e8416ae55cd79\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: No, he\u2019s just bringing in his people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225d1cacc4d7eb29c4a02e275e9df448f8\u0022\u003EHon Dr Duncan Webb\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, what a pity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022285a4e49e17d9105c0128d767a4a74f0\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the House is in committee on the Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill. We come to the debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 9\u2014\u201CPrincipal Act amended\u201D\u2014and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u0022e60538790d52fd580a16e10e4f27f204\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e60538790d52fd580a16e10e4f27f204\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (22:23)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. As prefaced, only moments ago, as we are in urgency, of course, I do have a number of questions. This is a bill which only has one substantive part. One question that comes out of Part 1, by its silence, is the clause 9 question that I asked earlier, because the whole of Part 1 is the substantive part in the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe case that that precipitated this, and it\u2019s in the regulatory impact statement, is the Crown and Pikia. One of the critical parts of that case concerned, is the fact that when the Serious Fraud Office issues a notice under Section 9 of the Serious Fraud Office Act, it\u2019s notice which can require a person to both attend and to produce documents and information. But it had been being used, and I can understand that\u2014well, the whole point of this is that the Serious Fraud Office Act hadn\u2019t kept up and there had been a, kind of, creep as to what information and documents meant. The Serious Fraud Office was proceeding on the basis that they could, essentially, require people to attend and produce the things that contained information and documents such as cellphones, laptops, and other devices. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, it does strike me\u2014because you\u2019ve got to remember, in terms of search and surveillance, there\u2019s a principle that you take the least invasive approach. If you\u2019ve got a person who, you know, is not a flight risk, there\u2019s no real risk that they\u2019re going to destroy any evidence, and you could get the information from the bank if you needed it, but you just want to get them in to ask for it; that\u2019s what you should do. You should use the least invasive method possible, and that will be, \u201CPlease come along and give us your laptop.\u201D That\u2019s what they should, in fact, have the power to do and require. Of course, they can still say, \u201CIf you wouldn\u2019t mind terribly, would you, possibly, hand over your laptop?\u201D But I can tell you that the first thing you do then is call your lawyer and say, \u201CDo I have to?\u201D If it\u2019s a Section 9 notice\u2014and I\u2019ve had these phone calls\u2014you say, \u201CYes, you do, and you also need me to help you because this has become quite serious.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut, at the moment, it appears, and even after the bill has been passed, that the Serious Fraud Office still can\u2019t say, \u201CYou are required to attend on our office and produce your laptop so that we can extract the documents from it.\u201D It is kind of odd. I suppose, they could say, \u201CPlease provide us all emails from date X to date Y, between these two people\u201D, and they happen to be on the laptop, but you might have to go and get them and put them on a USB, but they can\u2019t actually ask for that laptop or that cellphone that might have traffic information on it\u2014because that\u2019s the other thing, of course; it\u2019s not just the emails; it might be information about phone calls: when they were made and who they were made to\u2014or anything of that nature.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo in that point of the least invasive approach, because it seems that if you need the laptop or the cellphone or whatever device it is, you\u2019ve now got to get a search warrant and enter someone\u2019s house, which is much more invasive and serious and\u2014this is the real point, right; this is what we\u2019re talking about\u2014less New Zealand Bill of Rights Act compliant to be free of unreasonable search and seizure than the alternative.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s actually quite a big question. I\u2019ve had a good read of the regulatory impact statement, which, interestingly, notes that there was not sufficient consultation prior to the policy decisions being made; that because of the urgency created by this case and the Government moving at speed, again. But it does strike me that this is an issue that does need addressing. I\u2019m hopeful, actually, that I\u2019ve missed something, but it does seem to me that there is a gap and it\u2019s not reflected in the analysis of this, which, basically, says, \u201CYes, there\u2019s problem. Yes, we should fix it. Yes, we should make it consistent with the Evidence Act\u201D, but it doesn\u2019t actually say how throughout.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u00221c2bc2df23b6d9c7064583dc5122f532\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221c2bc2df23b6d9c7064583dc5122f532\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police) (22:28)\u003C/span\u003E: I mean, the Serious Fraud Office, any law enforcement agency, can actually just make a request to anyone for information. But the member\u2019s right: unless it\u2019s someone that feels very strongly they have nothing to hide or they want to be cooperative, which sometimes does happen, then, of course, like any law enforcement agency, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has to use the powers or the notices available to it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EPikia\u003C/span\u003E case, as he referred to, it was quite simply that the Court of Appeal found that the SFO issued a high volume of notices rather than warrants, requiring someone to provide the very information that he\u2019s referring to, and executed several search warrants during its investigation. These were used to obtain a large quantity of information, including cloud data and information from digital services. The court found many of the notices and warrants were unlawful as they were too broad in scope, lacked detail, or lacked relevance to the immediate investigation. The court ruled the evidence inadmissible and the SFO was unable to continue its prosecution. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn response to the court\u2019s findings, the SFO made operational changes, including using more warrants\u2014so they moved away from the notices and started using more warrants, which is almost counterintuitive to what the member was actually bringing forward and speaking about, which I can see why he\u2019s brought that forward.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut they obviously started using warrants to give the judiciary more oversight in terms of what they\u2019re doing, because, obviously, the legislation needed updating. Of course, in reaching its decision, the court highlighted issues with the SFO Act, that contributed to the unlawful exercise of powers. The reforms in the bill will resolve these issues and clarify the scope of the SFO\u2019s search warrant powers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u0022a2d382b7064d3f69ce3addb93216fa14\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a2d382b7064d3f69ce3addb93216fa14\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (22:30)\u003C/span\u003E: Minister, I appreciate the analysis that you\u2019ve relied on, and I think this is the problem, because I\u2019ve read the regulatory impact statement and it only identifies half of the case. It alarms me, because you\u2019re right that there was a misuse of section 9 notices, so they went to warrants. But the problems were twofold. The section 9 notice can\u2019t be used to demand a device, and that bit is not fixed. So I get your focus on the warrant issue; I\u2019m focusing on the notice issue. I guess my question is this. It\u2019s a real short one, and then I\u2019m going to sit down. Did the Government look at the issue and decide not to fix it or has it forgotten?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u00223ae28d398075532a28711531c9193715\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223ae28d398075532a28711531c9193715\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police) (22:31)\u003C/span\u003E: Just very simply, with advice from my officials, there are no changes to section 9. Section 9 was used in the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\u0022\u003EPikia\u003C/span\u003E case because the warrant section wasn\u2019t fit for purpose, and fixing the warrant section creeps over reliance on section 9 notices.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u002264082bbd9b3c0353ba617f9f0a4ce20c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002264082bbd9b3c0353ba617f9f0a4ce20c\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (22:31)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to ask a couple of questions on clause 4(1). I just want to say that I really appreciate the Minister in the chair\u2019s engagement so far. The first one is around the definition of \u201Ccomputer system\u201D. I\u2019m particularly looking at paragraph (a)(iii) and (iv). This touches on one of the questions I had in my second reading, which is around what happens if the thing that you\u2019re trying to access, where part of it is here domestically within New Zealand and another half of it is maybe in an overseas jurisdiction\u2014so, for example, when we\u2019re looking at a computer system where any communication links between computers or to remote terminals or another device, and then later on it says between communities or remote terminals or any other device.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo when you are looking at, let\u2019s say, two computers linked within, let\u2019s say, a company\u2019s intranet, one of them is here, and another one is maybe in the office overseas that you may potentially also need to access, what is the jurisdiction for the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) in that instance? Are they able to access both, or is the SFO able to access, with notice or with warrant, the physical object here, the physical computer here, the computer system that is digital or electronic, but cannot access the physical object on the other side because of the fact that it is in an overseas jurisdiction? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFurthermore to that question, it also then comes down to\u2014I\u2019m assuming that even if it\u2019s something that is overseas, provided it\u2019s in the hard drive, which is still technically considered as digital that that can also be accessed. So that\u2019s my first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u00229c5088f24de744a633977b97ac0b7270\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229c5088f24de744a633977b97ac0b7270\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police) (22:33)\u003C/span\u003E: I learnt from the last session: it might be easier just to deal with them individually. On the first one, which was a very good question, to search a laptop, you obviously need to have physical possession of that laptop. A remote access search is for data and storage facilities. You cannot otherwise access and search. If we wanted to search a laptop in another country or another jurisdiction, then that would have to mean cooperation with that country or that jurisdiction to be able to do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u002258546c2f785b5be8008a36acf484329c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002258546c2f785b5be8008a36acf484329c\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (22:34)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you so much. Second question is on the definition of \u201Cthing\u201D. Now, I know that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb may have questions on here, but the first question I wanted to ask is, when you\u2019re looking at \u201Cthing\u201D being an intangible thing, although it specifies email addresses, it doesn\u2019t specify social media accounts or, potentially, apps. Are those things considered \u201Cthings\u201D, being my first question?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe reason I mention that is there\u2019s been, actually, a couple of cases reported here in New Zealand around the use of WeChat, for example, in some of the issues and particularly when it comes to misuse of legal advice and there\u2019s also been scams and fraud, etc., and other things\u2014so whether that would be considered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA follow-up question to that is: if \u201Cthing\u201D does indeed include things such as apps, does it need to include a specific app with a specific access of information\u2014i.e., a password to that particular app\u2014or could it be a collection of apps? The example I want to give is, let\u2019s say we\u2019re looking at Meta: when you\u2019re looking at Meta, you can access Facebook and you can also access Instagram. Do you need to ensure that you need to have three different, I guess, warrants for those? And then within Facebook, you would divide into Facebook itself, but also Facebook Messenger. Meta also includes WhatsApp. So, in that case, do you need to spell those things out individually?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u002226584ee089d32ca60f77637ee6c5ea47\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002226584ee089d32ca60f77637ee6c5ea47\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (22:36)\u003C/span\u003E:  Picking up on Dr Xu-Nan\u2019s points, I really don\u2019t understand that definition of \u201Cthing\u201D and the work it does, because if you think of an intangible thing, it\u2019s often used in terms of, like, property. So a copyright is an intangible thing or information, an email, is an intangible thing. But it seems to be doing this weird work where it\u2019s an email address or access or password. It\u2019s just not a thing at all\u2014it\u2019s just not a thing. So I\u2019d be interested in the Minister in the chair, actually\u2014and I see he\u2019s getting some advice\u2014saying, \u201COh, we\u2019ve got to describe \u2018thing\u2019 as including an email address for such and such a reason.\u201D You can imagine seizing an email, but seizing an email address doesn\u2019t make sense.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ESo if you could explain that, that would be really good.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022d3289005e340ae97bdaaaf9a98d69947\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d3289005e340ae97bdaaaf9a98d69947\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police) (22:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, thank you, Mr Chair. So to the member in relation to \u201Cthing\u201D, could it include a Facebook account? It could include a Facebook account, for an individual issuing officer to determine. If OK, that would have to be specified in the actual application.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn relation to a \u201Cthing\u201D, for the Hon Duncan Webb, \u201Cthing\u201D is defined in the Search and Surveillance Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00228e91106cef35509ccd533a9b5c92347b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228e91106cef35509ccd533a9b5c92347b\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (22:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. That is very helpful indeed. I just have one further question. The reason we want to analyse this and be able to clarify some of these is because, as we see with the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ECrown - Pikia\u003C/span\u003E case, one of the issues is that the breadth and also the vagueness of when that case came about and some of the issues around this. So we are kind of asking some potentially hypothetical but quite detailed questions, just so that, in that case, it\u2019s clear and it\u2019s on \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E, on the record, the ministerial intent. This is also one of the reasons why we are asking quite a few specific questions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThank you, Minister, for your response, but I just want to double-check that you do have to specify, but I\u2019m guessing you also need to specify regardless if a particular app has a linked account to another app as well. So, again, I\u2019ll give you an example\u2014that Instagram can be linked to Facebook. When something happens in Instagram, something happens in Facebook as well, which I\u2019m sure many parliamentarians are familiar with. That would also then require two separate ones. I just want to clarify that that is the case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m going to move on to clause 6 now, which is \u201CSection 10 replaced\u201D, noting that my colleagues may have other questions. I know that there were quite a few changes. This is the area where there were the most substantial changes during the select committee stage. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to move on just a little bit to clause 6, which inserts new section 10(5). One of the things that this came about is because we\u2019ve heard submitters talking about if this is something that is going to be used as by the SFO in terms of the application for a search warrant, what are some of the safeguards when it comes to, in particular, I believe, the issuing officer. Here I just want to double-check whether the Minister\u2014the select committee obviously added some safeguards here, and particularly when it comes to subclause (5)(c), on the information required is supplied to the issuing officer. But I do want to check with the Minister if the Minister considered if that safeguard is (1) sufficient; and (2) if there are other tools within the SFO that offers additional safeguard in this context?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022 data-id=\u00226cad7463f8da4914009ddcf0209fd441\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226cad7463f8da4914009ddcf0209fd441\u0022\u003EDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (22:40)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Minister of Police, for your time. Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan is in the same area as me in clause 6, which is replacing section 10 of the principal Act. That\u2019s the application for a search warrant. On one level, that\u2019s fairly procedural, but it\u2019s also an important safeguard because the quality of the information supplied at the application stage largely determines how well the rights of individuals and businesses are actually protected later on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWhat interests me within this clause is how these requirements work in the digital environment. For a physical search warrant, it\u2019s usually obvious what\u2019s being searched. It might be an office or warehouse or a filing cabinet. Increasingly, though, fraud investigations involve cloud accounts, digital platforms, and data that may be distributed across multiple servers and jurisdictions. In those situations, the challenge is making sure that the application is sufficiently precise so that an issuing officer understands exactly what access is being sought and why. I suppose my question there, Minister, is, in the case of cloud-based information or a digital platform, what level of specificity does the Minister expect? Excuse me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d34e2809b17edd826262c818f23d7338\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Take your time. Have some water.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022100b5794cae2d68d6716c6adf9a93aeb\u0022\u003EDAN ROSEWARNE\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister expect an applicant to provide so that an issuing officer can properly assess the scope and proportionality of that proposed search? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002291d8c0e61c2f730c8809a10d28a444d9\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Dr David\u2014oh, sorry. The Hon Mark Mitchell.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f9108adf8340b9ca7524c4b410ce82f7\u0022\u003EHon Dr Duncan Webb\u003C/span\u003E: Always late.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022e90435816626b10144774bafe4e06a5b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e90435816626b10144774bafe4e06a5b\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police) (22:42)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, sorry. Just very quickly, for Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, for linked accounts, you would need to specify in the warrant application, so that would have to be specified; and yes, the safeguards are sufficient and it matches the Search and Surveillance Act. Just in relation to issuing officers to authorise Serious Fraud Office (SFO) warrants, the bill allows an issuing officer to authorise an SFO search warrant rather than being limited to a judge. Issuing officers also authorise search warrants for other law enforcement agencies under the Search and Surveillance Act, so that is covered under the Search and Surveillance Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI think Mr Dan Rosewarne has just raised this one, as well. A judge can be an issuing officer, but this role can also be performed by justices of the peace, community magistrates, registrars, or deputy registrars who have been authorised by the Attorney-General under section 108 of the Search and Surveillance Act. This allows for more efficient processing of SFO warrant applications than is currently the case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u0022be5cc87660237ec327de800e936abfcd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022be5cc87660237ec327de800e936abfcd\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (22:43)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I don\u2019t want to labour this too much, and to put this generally, I think the advice you got from your officials might have been a bit hasty, because \u201Cthing\u201D is not defined in the Search and Surveillance Act. The Search and Surveillance Act defines \u201Cthing seized\u201D, but it defines it in a negative way, as \u201Cnot including anything made or generated by a person exercising a search or surveillance power (for example, photographs, drawings\u201D and so on, so that\u2019s not that helpful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt strikes me that perhaps what we\u2019re meaning by \u201Cthing\u201D, including an email address or access information, is actually because the power of a warrant ends up being to search for and remove documents or other thing. It still makes it very odd, because you can remove an email from an email account but you can\u2019t remove an access information such as a password, so I\u2019m still perplexed by that, but I\u2019ll leave it there. I just think that\u2019s a shoddy bit of drafting, perhaps, that we failed in the Justice Committee to pick up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other question I have is a short one\u2014a very short one. You note that if a laptop is overseas, you need the assistance of the foreign States. Equally, if you want, for example, access to somebody\u2019s Google Maps, you need the access of the foreign State to access Google\u2019s data in America. If there is a Microsoft cloud storage where all of the emails are stored, and it\u2019s in California, do you need to use a power like the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act? Or are you saying that, via this piece of legislation, you can execute a search which essentially accesses information in a foreign jurisdiction?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00223966e1eef568e46273b670dd7aa2cbfb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223966e1eef568e46273b670dd7aa2cbfb\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (22:45)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e551a81124d527054dda3f16b983c559\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I must admit, all of you are going to have to keep me up to date with the clauses, because this \u201Cthings\u201D thing is over my head, and I\u2019m glad the Minister of Police and you guys sort of understand it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224961a884ad2c1e487cac24955ced4b3e\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Just for Madam Chair, the definition of \u201Cthing\u201D is clause 4(1).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022082441b2e0aabd2a26fd48f8fbe57691\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f4f484d2a09aac10c5361a29e4ddcd79\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019re just seeking some clarifications, but I am currently on clause 6, replacing section 10, and my previous question was on clause 6(5). I\u2019m now going to just move on to clause 10A, which is a little bit later, but I note that this is an area that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb has expressed a lot of interest in around section 9 of the Search and Surveillance Act (SSA), so I will leave that enjoyment to the Hon Dr Duncan Webb.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat I want to move on to is clause 10A(3), which is around the warrant. Now, one of the things that I think we did touch on\u2014and I think this is something, from memory, that the officials, at least during the Justice Committee, gave some update on\u2014was in terms in terms of consistency with SSA around the search warrant time where the search warrant is limited to 14 days. Indeed, if you are looking at clause 10A(3)(a)(i), it  says, \u201Ca period specified by the issuing officer not exceeding 14 days\u201D, but for consistency, it allows for a warrant to be authorised up to 30 days. What it doesn\u2019t specify here, as you see in clause 10A(3)(a)(ii), is if the issuing officer is satisfied it is needed, but it doesn\u2019t specify what that particular satisfaction implies. I think my question to the Minister is, how would one, in this case, satisfy the issuing officer that more than 30 days is needed?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second question is that I do believe that, in clause 10A(3)(b), it says, \u201Cthe warrant may be executed on more than 1 occasion, the number of times the warrant may be executed\u201D must be contained, but is there a limit to that? I think, in my mind, I want to say six, but I cannot remember if that\u2019s actually part of the SSA. That, I don\u2019t believe, is specified in the bill here that I can see\u2014if there is a limit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022d9cc653435df26241bcb864e8221369b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d9cc653435df26241bcb864e8221369b\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police) (22:48)\u003C/span\u003E: The SFO officials are so good that they\u2019re almost getting ahead of the questions that I\u2019m getting. I just wanted to come back to the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s question. For clarification, just have a look at section 97, because apparently in the Search and Surveillance Act, it does define \u201Cthing\u201D. Maybe just have a look at that. Cloud-based information\u2014a level of specificity is expected for that, and that is set out in new clause 10(2)(b), (c), and (d), and forms in Schedule 2 also set out the required detail.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe bill aligns the SFO powers for digital material with those of other New Zealand law enforcement agencies. This, again, sort of comes back to the question that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb brought forward. The issue of extraterritoriality and digital searches is a legally complex one where case law is still developing both domestically and internationally. In some cases, the courts have allowed for access to evidence stored overseas, particularly where the information was created in New Zealand or was interpreted to form part of a New Zealand computer system. In other cases, law enforcement agencies need to seek formal assistance through the mutual assistance in criminal matters regime.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u00229f43fff31e4cb3507b188769bc6e8330\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229f43fff31e4cb3507b188769bc6e8330\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (22:50)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to turn to aspects of new section 10 and, in particular, the importance of the information given to the issuing officer. I must say, I didn\u2019t actually realise that magistrates could issue warrants, so that\u2019s something I\u2019ve learnt. I also learnt this week that magistrates don\u2019t have to be legally qualified, and, in fact, one of them is a real estate agent, which raises some concerns around the issuing of warrants. In fact, they can\u2019t be lawyers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m looking at the application for a search warrant, and one of the challenges for an issuing officer is, obviously, they\u2019ve got to make an independent judgment that this warrant is necessary and proportionate and that its bounds are appropriate. One of the challenges I see is in subsection (3), which has what I consider to be an odd provision, which says, \u201CThe issuing officer \u2026 must not \u2026 require the Director to disclose the name, address, or any other identifying detail of an informant\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the problems in the justice system generally is the reliability of snitches, right? That\u2019s the pretty pejorative term\u2014but, in particular, people who give information in return for favours within the system. Sometimes it\u2019s favours within the prison system, sometimes it\u2019s immunity from prosecution, or whatever. Now, if you\u2019ve got someone who is being rewarded for cooperation\u2014that\u2019s a better way to put it\u2014then the issuing officer should know, because it goes to the heart of reliability. In fact, if you were in court, there\u2019s an obligation\u2014if you\u2019re fronting a witness who is being given some benefit for being a witness, the prosecution has to disclose the benefit. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHere you\u2019ve got this very odd provision that does say\u2014I want to be fulsome\u2014that, yes, you can disclose if it\u2019s necessary to assist the credibility of the informant and whether there\u2019s a proper basis for issuing the warrant, but the onus is wrong. It should be that you should know the identity of an informant unless it\u2019s necessary or in the interests of justice or for the protection or security of that person to not disclose it. This is actually saying, \u201CKeep the identity of the informant from this quasi-judicial officer unless there are compelling reasons\u201D\u2014that should be flipped on its head. You should be fulsome and give full information unless there\u2019s a very good reason for withholding it, not the other way around. I\u2019d be interested to know\u2014and the Minister may have himself experienced that in his previous life.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022ba6bcde4e5554f20765863b5f3f24c96\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ba6bcde4e5554f20765863b5f3f24c96\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police) (22:53)\u003C/span\u003E: To Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, 30 days might be needed for digital remote access searches which are time-consuming and require more than one entry. The number of entries are not specified in the Search and Surveillance Act; that would be specified in the warrant application itself. The select committee recommended amending the bill to allow for multiple entries and extended time frames to execute a warrant to better achieve the bill\u2019s intent. Currently, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) warrants can only authorise one entry in 14 days. Enabling the SFO extended time frames and multiple entries for the execution of a warrant is important in the context of digital searches. Searches of digital material are often time-consuming and can require multiple entries to search the data effectively. An issuing officer would need to be satisfied that either is necessary to carry out the relevant search. The SFO must therefore demonstrate the relevant need as part of the application process. These provisions will align the SFO with the warrant conditions other law enforcement agencies are subject to under the Search and Surveillance Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022 data-id=\u0022f1d36b13ebfe826c06f289d88b0b4ea1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f1d36b13ebfe826c06f289d88b0b4ea1\u0022\u003EDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (22:54)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister. I just want to jump on to clause 7 and, in, particular new section 12BA, which is on page 9. That\u2019s \u201CIdentifications and notice requirements for remote access search\u201D. I see that as one of the more important safeguards within the bill. Earlier clauses give the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) the ability to conduct remote access searches of digital systems that may never involve officers physically actually turning up at the door. Because those searches can potentially occur without the immediate knowledge of the user, this clause requires the SFO to notify the person once the search has been completed. The SFO must send an electronic message to the email address of the thing being searched and provide a copy of the warrant, record when the search started and finished, identify the person responsible, and provide contact details for inquiries. If the message cannot be delivered, the SFO must take reasonable steps to identify the user and provide the information in another way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI support the intent. If this bill is going to authorise remote searches that may occur without somebody\u2019s knowledge at the time, then a notification requirement is an important accountability mechanism. But the question I have is whether the safeguard remains effective in the real world. Fraud investigations often involve dormant email accounts, false identities, compromised systems, overseas platforms, or cloud services where the account holder may not be easy to identify. In those situations, the value of the safeguard then depends on whether the notification actually reaches somebody who can understand what has occurred and exercise their rights.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI suppose my question there, Minister, within new section 12BA, inserted by clause 7\u2014it requires notification to be sent to the email address of the thing searched, and, if that fails, requires reasonable steps to identify the user. What does the Minister expect \u201Creasonable steps\u201D to mean in practice, particularly where the account is hosted overseas, uses false identifying information, or is otherwise difficult to attribute to a specific person?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022afce6847c13e3468ab401b955b2f6e05\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022afce6847c13e3468ab401b955b2f6e05\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police) (22:57)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much. Just responding to the Hon Dr Duncan Webb: I have covered off\u2014fairly fully\u2014around issuing officers, but issuing officers is the same as the Search and Surveillance Act. Issuing officers are authorised by the Attorney-General. It\u2019s really interesting that you raise the issue around informants, because, yes, you\u2019d know that, actually, protecting the identity of informants is fundamentally quite important, but, as you\u2019ve highlighted in the current legislation, if the authorising officer feels that it\u2019s necessary to have the identity of the informant revealed, then that can be done under the Act. But I think the order is in the right way, and I think the select committee has obviously gone over that and has decided that that was the right thing to do. Informant provisions are contained within the Search and Surveillance Act, section 98(2)(b).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u0022368f97a588f052fbad2ceb037bbdb449\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022368f97a588f052fbad2ceb037bbdb449\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (22:58)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just still on clause 6 but moving on a bit to new section 10B, which\u2014again, you think it\u2019s an admin clause, but it\u2019s actually not. It\u2019s about the retention of documents. It\u2019s about how long documents have to be retained for. Where a search warrant is issued, they have to be retained for as long as there are proceedings for which the validity of the warrant may be in issue or on foot or, in any other case, two years. If there are no proceedings, you\u2019ve got to keep them for two years, which, when you think this can be electronically stored, is actually quite a short period of time. I honestly don\u2019t know why they are required to have it for two years, because the Serious Fraud Office file or the police file or whatever would last a lot longer than that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EBut the one that really gets me is the other one, because if you\u2019ve got a proceeding on foot\u2014and I\u2019m thinking of those cases, and we see them routinely, where you\u2019ve exhausted appeals, and the poor person is in jail, and then five years later someone says, \u201COh, that was a jack-up.\u201D You get compelling evidence\u2014and we\u2019ve seen a case go through the courts recently, which was essentially on the basis that compelling evidence\u2014that what was before the court was essentially a fraud in itself. If that\u2019s the case, and you need these documents to show the innocence, or show the chain of events, then it does strike me that as soon as you\u2019ve exhausted your Supreme Court appeal, you shouldn\u2019t be able to put it through the shredder. I\u2019m thinking that the Minister may actually see my point there, especially because in this modern world, it\u2019s not much difficulty to scan a document and file it in a document management system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022bd63ac43de6a7d3509041c9f3af85fce\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bd63ac43de6a7d3509041c9f3af85fce\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police) (23:01)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m just responding to the question put forward by the member Dan Rosewarne in terms of notification requirements. Notification of remote access searches is the same. The requirement is in the Search and Surveillance Act. If unsuccessful, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) must take steps to identify the person. Steps aren\u2019t specified. In practice, the SFO usually has the access information from the person, so they\u2019ll likely already know.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u002275a1729d4dfadb80fcf1769f6bbd38a8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002275a1729d4dfadb80fcf1769f6bbd38a8\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (23:01)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m following on from the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s question. In addition, as the Minister\u2019s seeking advice on new section 10B, I also just want to check whether the digital infrastructure of the District Court will also be able to be included here to encapsulate this additional power that it will have, and potentially when it comes to electronic written applications. Again, we\u2019re talking about the fact that when we\u2019re looking at the District Court, there\u2019s still continual upgrades with the Te Au Reka programme, which has been delayed a little bit as well. I want to check whether there is the capacity for the District Court to undertake the additional aspect in 10B. My next question is a very short one. It seems clause 7\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bf294a44bc8ee47c656e5b83c6cd3107\u0022\u003EHon Mark Mitchell\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, can I just interrupt the member. Can you just repeat the last part of that question?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dd74d651fb7a16b374ef97ed76d50b51\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Oh. The last part is whether the District Court under new section 10B has the infrastructure to be able to undertake what is required in that clause.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EFor clause 7, section 12A, I want to just make sure I don\u2019t forget this one. This is one of the questions I indicated in my second reading around some of the concerns with the new insertion of \u201Centry\u201D as part of the use of reasonable force. This is new section 12A(1)(c). I did mention quite a few things and had a chat with the Minister as well, so I just want to see if the Minister has any clarifications on that particular part, and I may have further questions for the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u002256ec54bb757dd54bb0126c3c143182e2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002256ec54bb757dd54bb0126c3c143182e2\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police) (23:03)\u003C/span\u003E: To very quickly come back to the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. Retention of documents is under new section 10B, inserted by clause 6. It\u2019s for the court to retain documents, so records of warrant applications. The same requirement exists in the Search and Surveillance Act. If I cover off very quickly, too, with Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: the court already must do this for search and surveillance, so the court already has capacity to be able to do this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022 data-id=\u002282551c2334a58743a43839db0f5dd5fc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002282551c2334a58743a43839db0f5dd5fc\u0022\u003EDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (23:04)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m just going to shoot back to clause 7, following on from my colleague Dan Rosewarne\u2019s question about the execution of search warrants. This clause replaces section 12 and establishes the operational powers associated with executing warrants. With regard to the scope of that search, I wanted to ask the Minister: how will the Serious Fraud Office manage searches where a device or a cloud account or something along those lines contains very large volumes of what is also personal, privileged, or plainly irrelevant information, along with the information that may be more relevant? Is there any requirement to use search methodologies designed to somehow minimise access to that type of almost inevitably irrelevant material?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cf706c08075ce5d8f3750efd8d9be9fd\u0022\u003EHon Mark Mitchell\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220f322f8be068bc3f605495251cda14bd\u0022\u003EHon Dr Duncan Webb\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002288511b98d68b99043dd9639c218721a0\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Honourable Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b67169eeac500d2bec3653f884297631\u0022\u003EHon Dr Duncan Webb\u003C/span\u003E: He just wants me to get more exercise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b0917aef4783ee209cbf4f1e16aa5047\u0022\u003EHon Mark Mitchell\u003C/span\u003E: Ha, ha. I don\u2019t want to get behind that story.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251ffb0e6a77b5557920ef4e8a4337595\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: It is easier, rather than getting a backlog of questions. I like it this way; it\u2019s the best way to run a committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u00222d22849b3c6ae4ae41844b9785b9b8e3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222d22849b3c6ae4ae41844b9785b9b8e3\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police) (23:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I agree. Coming back to Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan and the use of force. The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) could already use reasonable force to access a place to search it. This amendment bill does not change the SFO\u2019s powers in that regard. It simply uses the more modern language in the Search and Surveillance Act to grant the SFO the same powers it had before.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u0022e3de4a5b773bf4358a1af3fdcc5a2601\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e3de4a5b773bf4358a1af3fdcc5a2601\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (23:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I can see my colleague behind me who is leaping up is ready, so thank you for giving it to me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222ad4a5729a0d07c424033b1de2d34a10\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s all right. He\u2019ll get a turn.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002282546ff1093a1c873caf53009d9de526\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m just actually interested\u2014and it\u2019s almost a practical explanation, because throughout the legislation, it refers to in new section 12C(1) \u201CEvery person (other than a constable) called on to assist\u201D. I understand that constables, of course, have statutory powers, but I\u2019m interested in these people who are \u201Ccalled on to assist\u201D, and how that fits into the wider framing of the bill. In particular, are these people intended to be employees of the Serious Fraud Office, or perhaps even contractors\u2014it could be, I imagine, those guys from  KPMG with little wire-rimmed glasses who are called on to assist. I can understand that, but in terms of the actual search itself\u2014the physical search, not just a forensic, electronic search\u2014is there a power to compel people to assist?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EFor example, to use the situation I had before, if you\u2019re in a domestic setting and the man of the house is under suspicion, can you call on his spouse to assist? Is that calling on someone to assist? I get that they can\u2019t obstruct, and you can say, \u201CGo and sit over there,\u201D but can you say to someone else in the house, \u201CI require you to assist me. Where are all the cellphones? Where\u2019s the laptop? Where\u2019s the notebook by the phone\u2014the old-fashioned way?\u201D I\u2019m curious to understand how the search works. Who is the person who\u2019s the primary searcher\u2014because it\u2019s all about the director, but having met the director, I don\u2019t think she\u2019s going to be doing it\u2014then you\u2019ve got the person called on to assist. I\u2019d actually be really interested to understand: who\u2019s the person who obtains the warrant and conducts the search, and who are the people who are called on to assist?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022734a9ef854c7f5006acb8c3c1931926f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022734a9ef854c7f5006acb8c3c1931926f\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police) (23:08)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll just come back to the member Dr Tracey McLellan\u2019s point, which had been partly covered earlier, but under the current settings, there is legal uncertainty for the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), as to their ability to seize and search digital devices and digital material. This is because the SFO can currently only search a place. In an environment where fraud is almost exclusively carried out digitally, it is important that the SFO can search digital devices, and material effectively.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhile I\u2019m up, just coming back to\u2014the officials are probably doing some work on this anyway\u2014but in relation to a warrant that the SFO is executing, obviously that\u2019s going to be in the SFO\u2019s name. They\u2019ve got the warrant. No one can compel anyone to do anything they don\u2019t want to do. Obviously, if they\u2019re the subject of a warrant, and they\u2019re required to provide something, then the expectation is they will, and there are consequences. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWill the SFO take someone who has got, as you\u2019ve just highlighted, expert capability or experience in a certain field, because the area that they operate in is very complex. In fact, the SFO probably operates in the most complex world, in terms of law enforcement and protecting our country, so it\u2019s highly likely that they would need to call on that expertise. What is codified in the legislation is the SFO has got the ability to exclude someone from being at that location while the execution of a warrant is being undertaken. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022 data-id=\u00224afdf4709b3b46d743463a88620df5b3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224afdf4709b3b46d743463a88620df5b3\u0022\u003EDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (23:10)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Minister of Police. I just want to stay on clause 7A for a moment, inserting new section 13A, which is at the top of page 2, and that\u2019s the \u201CDisposal of forensic copies\u201D. That deals with something that sounds technical, but it goes directly to public trust in these powers, and it requires the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) to destroy forensic copies if it determines that the data does not contain evidential material. However, if a forensic copy contains a mixture of relevant and irrelevant material, the entire copy may be retained and can continue to be searched. The question there, Minister, is, what safeguards exist to ensure that information, which is clearly unrelated to the investigation, is not unnecessarily retained or repeatedly searched simply because it happens to sit alongside relevant material. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00221c9a40b2ae29f43335995253e11c3f51\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221c9a40b2ae29f43335995253e11c3f51\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (23:11)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister of Police, for your responses; they\u2019ve been excellent thus far. Also, I believe that the word of the day is \u201Cterritoriality\u201D, just from what the Minister was saying before.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b7d56aed7300f878ef463c0dff18015\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I thought it was \u201Cthings\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022479ab50fa204232c2c589f654a8e46d3\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, it could also be \u201Cthings\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ba1b1a6f8fd8b95011969ce56d9e1f22\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m still trying to work out \u201Cthings\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002204dbc1fa48b3bedd902d16d1dbb4ae44\u0022\u003EHon Mark Mitchell\u003C/span\u003E: What was the word of the day?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f2ee17fae493991851e2cf1d9d2dd82a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: \u201CTerritoriality\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022847965f86bbb160cb7f0849bab47a5ab\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: The word of the day is \u201Cterritoriality\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e2eaee3a9780d6d1bb804850991f9a9e\u0022\u003EHon Mark Mitchell\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, yeah\u2014you did a much better job of it than me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c9f19666740a68c5968c7062fd17199e\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Anyway, in terms of my questions, I just have two quick questions. Thank you for the response to clause 12A(1)(c) regarding \u201Centry and search\u201D. One quick question is on clause 12A(1)(a), when it talks about \u201Center and search\u2026on the number of occasions and within the period set out in the warrant:\u201D, and I\u2019m assuming, based on the discussion before, that the period can be no more than 30 days, if that\u2019s correct?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMy second question is on clause 12BA\u2014this is the bottom of page 9, line 33-ish\u2014and clause 12BA(1) does say that \u201CEvery person\u2026who executes a warrant\u2026must, on completion of the search, send an electronic message to the email address of the thing searched\u201D\u2014Madam Chair\u2019s favourite word\u2014and the criteria are clear, but what I don\u2019t know at this stage, if the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind clarifying, is that we talked about social media accounts, but what happens if the thing that is being searched doesn\u2019t have an email address? Or, for example, is it a recovery email address, which many social media accounts\u2014X, etc.\u2014would also contain? Let\u2019s say we\u2019re looking at WeChat or WhatsApp, or other forms of apps, it may not have an email address attached to it. How, then, would the person send an electronic message in those instances? Because email address is kind of specified here in clause 12BA(1).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u00223ca371a803f03989eb4a25e7264adabf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223ca371a803f03989eb4a25e7264adabf\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police) (23:13)\u003C/span\u003E: Just to address the member Dan Rosewarne\u2019s question around admissibility rules for unlawfully obtained evidence: in New Zealand and most other comparable jurisdictions, unlawfully obtained evidence is not automatically excluded from proceedings. Instead, a judge will evaluate whether the evidence should be admissible based on tests set out in legislation and case law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ECurrently, the test in the Serious Fraud Office Act requires that the unlawfully obtained evidence must be ruled inadmissible and destroyed unless the court is satisfied that there is no unfairness in obtaining the evidence. The test sets a high bar and is out of step with the more modern test set out in the Evidence Act. The updated approach in the bill uses the test in the Evidence Act, enabling the court to consider a wide range of factors when determining what evidence can be included in a prosecution. The test includes factors as to the quality of the evidence, the seriousness of the offence, and whether urgency or safety was a factor in how the evidence was obtained.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u00223e76dc29209113869c804a768c942f31\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223e76dc29209113869c804a768c942f31\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (23:14)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. That, actually, is probably one of the most important parts of this legislation, because the Minister of Police just kind of skimmed over the\u2014and I don\u2019t mean in a rude way, Minister\u2014radical change in this piece of legislation, which, in its current form, says that illegally obtained evidence is not admissible. That is, in other jurisdictions, a very normal rule. In the United States, it\u2019s called the fruit of the poisoned tree rule. You can\u2019t use the fruits of the evidence that was poisoned by illegal activities. For quite some time in New Zealand, we\u2019ve had a different rule in most cases. Under the Evidence Act, we\u2019ve got the Steven Joyce rule, which is that you can use it if it\u2019s only a little bit illegal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cf2cd11abd81c6983168be1632ec5269\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I think it was \u201Cpretty legal\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022630b79e28a468675e650ee76f5fe3c58\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, \u201Cpretty legal\u201D. Yeah, it\u2019s not quite the Steven Joyce rule, but it is actually a very significant shift, particularly where these cases depend almost entirely on piecing together evidence. The fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine is premised on the fact that we don\u2019t want to have any incentive whatsoever for a breach of the rules, because the fact of the matter is that officers know that if, for example\u2014to use another search example\u2014you pop around to the back door rather than knocking on the front door, you\u2019re much more likely to find incriminating evidence. That\u2019s an illegal search, because you\u2019ve got no right to go round to the back door of someone\u2019s house. Everyone knows you knock on the front door. But because you know it\u2019s a minor infringement and you might find really compelling evidence, you think, \u201CI\u2019ll do it anyway because the evidence will be admissible.\u201D You\u2019re actually giving an incentive to officers to get evidence in a way that is illegal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ENow, the court will take into account if they\u2019re like, \u201CYeah, I knew the rules, but I thought I\u2019d do it anyway.\u201D; that\u2019s actually a relevant factor in whether or not you accept this. But it is a concern to me that, in this section, it\u2019s kind of anodyne. It just says, \u201COh, we can apply section 30 of the Evidence Act.\u201D Well, section 30 of the Evidence Act says that illegally obtained evidence is admissible if its probative effect outweighs the illegality, because it is illegal. It\u2019s not entirely unique to New Zealand, but it\u2019s out of step with most democracies which adhere to the rule of law. I can see all the pragmatists in the room going, \u201CBloody human rights lawyers, aren\u2019t they a pain in the arse?\u201D, but it is problematic if you have rules which you only have to follow in a kind of \u201Cpretty legal\u201D kind of way. I know the Minister entirely recognises that enforcement agencies need to maintain the trust and confidence of both the citizenry and the courts, and it\u2019s a challenge when it\u2019s not uncommon for enforcement agencies to come to court and say, \u201CYeah, we accept that we broke the rules but we want to use the evidence anyway again.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u00228b1cb72b1b0b9e658243fe38ad581c46\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228b1cb72b1b0b9e658243fe38ad581c46\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police) (23:18)\u003C/span\u003E: If I go back to Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s forensic copies and what safeguards exist\u2014in Serious Fraud Office (SFO) operational practice, only relevant material is made available to investigators. Irrelevant material is held separately and needs to be balanced with the need to preserve evidence. On notification requirements on emails: if no email address is available, then they must take reasonable steps to identify one, but these aren\u2019t specified.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ESorry, Madam Chair, I just wanted to come back\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228dc5f3171bfee1dd158786193441791b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I just want people over here to know that we\u2019ve still got a couple of unanswered questions here, so I\u2019m not going to be closing until we get those.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c531fd6fd85789e6bd235e1232dfe0fa\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL\u003C/span\u003E: Hopefully I can help you with that, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022673985981fb767eb8fb4048bedc82ea9\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m sure you can. You\u2019re doing a good job.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221738294f932c32a0c00ad7571b4895d1\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Coming back to the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2014who\u2019s acknowledging his experience in law as a professor, I think; it\u2019s almost like you\u2019re asking the question to me and then answering it, as well\u2014around the fact that the updated approach in the bill, and I\u2019ll go through this again, uses the test in the Evidence Act, which he has referred to, enabling the court, which is the critical thing, to consider a wider range of factors when determining what evidence can be included in a prosecution. The test includes factors such as the quality of the evidence, the seriousness of the offence, and whether urgency or safety was a factor in how that evidence was obtained.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022 data-id=\u00228f48e64cea1d1d95711bd618a19d956a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228f48e64cea1d1d95711bd618a19d956a\u0022\u003EDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (23:20)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair, and I just want to ask a couple of questions, one going back slightly\u2014indulge me, because I didn\u2019t quite get a chance to ask and it\u2019s quite quick\u2014and another one just following up on the Minister\u2019s last response.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EClause 7, the remote access search authorised by warrant issued under Part 2\u2014does that remote access permit the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) to access information that\u2019s stored overseas? I don\u2019t know if you may have answered that\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225e6bc29f8eb285714b128ec47dc863a2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister\u2019s actually just said yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002292be1dd8d6b4b154838aa0d7ecc56408\u0022\u003EDr TRACEY McLELLAN\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, it is. So how does that provision interact, therefore, with some of the terms and conditions of those systems of overseas cloud service providers, and what happens if a remote search inadvertently accessed an account or a data set that falls outside of the warrant? That\u2019s of interest to me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThen just going back to that last response to the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s question about section 30, that balancing test for criminal procedures. Whilst that answer was interesting, I\u2019m still not sure it sufficed for the overall question. In doing that, could the Minister provide some sort of example of evidence unlawfully obtained that would currently be excluded but might be admitted under this new test, if that was the case? So those are my two questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022c71d9a598e015bb8c4819c10c2c8b06a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c71d9a598e015bb8c4819c10c2c8b06a\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police) (23:22)\u003C/span\u003E: I think what\u2019s happened is the legislation has updated the way that evidence is held and treated by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the arbiter of that is actually the court. I can\u2019t give you any operational cases because the work they do is\u2014I don\u2019t get briefed on the detail on it, I just know that it\u2019s very complex in terms of the work they do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI don\u2019t know if the member is in the House; I\u2019m not sure. I will say I don\u2019t know when I went back to the issue, as Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan said, that the word of the day is \u201Cterritoriality\u201D and digital searches is a legally complex one where case law is still being developed, both domestically and internationally, because of the complexity around it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db96284ce26448084c2135caa55778f3\u0022\u003EDr Tracey McLellan\u003C/span\u003E: I was probably beguiled by the word; I missed that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022467b80111f94ff71752907e625da5c3f\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah. As you\u2019ve highlighted, it\u2019s deeply complex. Are you happy with that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223c0fdf2b5520636ac51ff77e4854e524\u0022\u003EDr Tracey McLellan\u003C/span\u003E: Yep.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u0022a9b773247ee62ea9e04805bef39157e4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a9b773247ee62ea9e04805bef39157e4\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (23:22)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019ve actually got a very short question and it\u2019s around the forensic copies. New section 13A talks about disposal of forensic copies that don\u2019t contain evidence, and then it talks about forensic copies that do contain evidence. My question, in its most simple form, is: how long are you allowed to keep that for? If you have a prosecution\u2014so this is going to be personal information about people\u2019s financial affairs, and if you choose not to prosecute, how long can you keep it for? If you prosecute and are not successful\u2014so you get a not guilty verdict\u2014how long can you keep it for? And if you prosecute and you send them away, presumably you keep it indefinitely.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019m particularly interested when you get this information and you make a prosecution decision that is \u201CNo, we won\u2019t prosecute\u201D. You\u2019re going to get rid of the search warrant in two years\u2014the application for a search warrant. What\u2019s the time limit for holding this information, which is, in fact, information private to the person you\u2019ve seized it from and who isn\u2019t going to be prosecuted?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022c2328726c8e5724acd8ff2f36cd9608f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c2328726c8e5724acd8ff2f36cd9608f\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police) (23:24)\u003C/span\u003E: The officials will probably be able to give us some more clarity, but on first brush on that one\u2014and the member would well know that a decision to prosecute may be delayed dependent on the evidence and dependent on the confidence around the gathering of more evidence that reaches a threshold to actually take the case and prosecute; that would be no different in the case of the Serious Fraud Office, as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u0022ef9aa3972bda55adcead4b2d90a1e38f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ef9aa3972bda55adcead4b2d90a1e38f\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (23:25)\u003C/span\u003E: To clarify, my point is that agencies\u2014any prosecuting agencies have a decision point where they do an evidential threshold test, they run through the elements of the offence, they do a public interest test, and they actually make a call. When they\u2019ve made that call, it\u2019s not a call that they can\u2019t revisit if new evidence comes in, but at that point they\u2019ve made a call not to prosecute, perhaps because they haven\u2019t got enough evidence and they\u2019re still sitting on this pile of private information. I can see you\u2019ve had some advice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u00226ee0ba72e2c2b0a67d1ff58a071868e4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226ee0ba72e2c2b0a67d1ff58a071868e4\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police) (23:25)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the point that I was making is that there may be a decision not to prosecute on this date due to the evidence that\u2019s been assessed as not meeting the threshold that they want to progress with a prosecution, but it doesn\u2019t mean that they may not have some additional evidence in the near future or in the future that they could bring a prosecution. To answer the question, forensic copies that contain evidence could be kept indefinitely, and this is completely compliant and in line with the Search and Surveillance Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b36480a3640fea1f5b482ed99195d6d8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2014I know you\u2019ve got a couple of really short, quick questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022f6c6d749ca5f3d47165d38ee4e296761\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f6c6d749ca5f3d47165d38ee4e296761\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (23:26)\u003C/span\u003E: This is my last question for this part, and I specifically want to look at clause 2(1) of Schedule 1. In effect, the clause that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb mentioned around the inadmissibility of evidence applies here when it comes to 2(1). It says that that clause 22(3), subclause (a) applies to anything before commencement. That would include\u2014if no charge has been laid, I would guess section 22 would be applicable, if that\u2019s correct.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe second question is, I would assume this also includes appeals of previous judgment\u2014in that case, if the appeal cannot appeal beyond the basis of inadmissibility of evidence that now under section 22(3) in clause 8, it would actually make something that was previously inadmissible admissible. Would that be a possibility? That would make things quite serious.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022108d0328ad6eb1bb2687482efbe274e3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Minister, have\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ab6d92c217d0850d9e7fb49252f29948\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223a78954ecff20ccf9a032af4f68d0b54\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister is just telling me that he doesn\u2019t have the information, so we\u2019re just going to take one call from Tracey McLellan while we\u2019re getting the information.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022 data-id=\u0022ba5bf0fc339157db9c6fc9d6dc66a5d9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ba5bf0fc339157db9c6fc9d6dc66a5d9\u0022\u003EDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (23:27)\u003C/span\u003E: Very quick, yep.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d9039ce236abc26c46533bd74c50d009\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Then I will be looking to wind up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022644c313616b61afd619fea4dbc6c3892\u0022\u003EDr TRACEY McLELLAN\u003C/span\u003E: And I can soak up a little bit of time until you get that advice. I just wanted to ask a follow-up question with regard to those forensic copies. In that case, if you can hold information indefinitely, what happens to the material that\u2019s subject to legal professional privilege or other types of protected information that might be contained within that forensic copy? I don\u2019t suppose it\u2019s really that relevant to how long it\u2019s held for, but either way, that privileged information that could be contained in that\u2014how does that get handled in those circumstances?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u002294530f70d239136532ca16e8b86652ab\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002294530f70d239136532ca16e8b86652ab\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police) (23:28)\u003C/span\u003E: To Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: new section 22 will apply to any charges filed after enactment and the appeals are subject to the old test\u2014so it\u2019s the same as the old test. To the member Tracey McLellan: at the end of the day, forensic copies that contain evidence could be kept indefinitely\u2014they can be kept indefinitely. This is the same as in the Search and Surveillance Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b543a91e3cbed1623ef42c001d3d25f3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: You haven\u2019t answered around the legally privileged question; that\u2019s the only thing I was just waiting for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221725f616a21009637c870798b94fddd5\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s the same.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022 data-id=\u0022443a94b74ae6b580e37b2150fe42c73a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022443a94b74ae6b580e37b2150fe42c73a\u0022\u003EDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National\u2014Mt Roskill) (23:29)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the question be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 36\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 1; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022183471f37e5558ae600af5b2ca7262a7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I will remind people on both sides of the Chamber: we don\u2019t speak during voting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EPart 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00221091d236df4c6a0894d5028dd3ffc8eb\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c9faad0c351eed4545380884aa61eb51\u0022\u003EPart 2 Amendments to other enactments, and Schedule 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227dd39f9e443f8733694d2021353c2542\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to Part 2, which is the debate on clauses 10 to 13\u2014\u201CAmendments to other enactments\u201D\u2014and Schedule 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u0022d501e3db67eeb9d97e28ed37b2672335\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d501e3db67eeb9d97e28ed37b2672335\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (23:30)\u003C/span\u003E: Oh no, it was Schedule 1 I wanted to talk about actually. I\u2019ll leave that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00229927802dac92d5a4c38f5232a0c2f69d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229927802dac92d5a4c38f5232a0c2f69d\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (23:30)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I do have a question regarding Schedule 2 and this is specifically clause 13, \u201Cform 4 set out in Schedule 2\u201D. I guess the first question is: is it the standard rule that the form that you\u2019re looking at for search warrant is locked into primary legislation? I\u2019m guessing any adjustments to this form needs to be done through primary legislation; there are no regulations around this. That being my first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI just want to double-check that in this particular form\u2014in 3(a) I believe\u2014that (3)(a) is sufficient to actually capture all of the information that we\u2019ve discussed previously. For example, linked accounts, apps, and all of those?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u002290e09298b136bd15786ae630f15336f7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002290e09298b136bd15786ae630f15336f7\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police) (23:31)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. The answer is yes to both. Yes, to both, Lawrence Xu-Nan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022320888f7c1f22871f4a4ae9f2ca9dc39\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022dfcaa5acb7876599dfc19634feceaefd\u0022\u003EClauses 1 and 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223599a18484472fbfb355bcce59aaf2c5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to our final debate, clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on \u201CTitle\u201D and \u201CCommencement\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00223a02d85a7f2b71b200360e171695f8eb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223a02d85a7f2b71b200360e171695f8eb\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (23:32)\u003C/span\u003E: I just have a quick question on the commencement date. The Act comes into force the day after Royal assent; presumably it\u2019s because, based on what we see with \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ECrown and Pikia\u003C/span\u003E, that this is something that the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), I\u2019m assuming, already has the capacity in doing. However, the question I have is: does SFO actually have to the capacity to implement this right away, considering we have seen, for example, some cuts to SFO and there\u2019s been talks of mergers, etc., as a part of the broader changes? So that\u2019s, essentially, my question: does SFO have the capacity to undertake this now? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u002237992123b8ab1b19f0e8074de6f6e625\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002237992123b8ab1b19f0e8074de6f6e625\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police) (23:33)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. I\u2019d like to address a couple of those things. So firstly, just want to acknowledge our director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), Karen Chang, who, quite simply, is outstanding, and the entire SFO team. Yes, they have a lot of work on their plate, that\u2019s no doubt about that, and they\u2019re a relatively small agency, but they definitely know how to triage and prioritise. They are very good at that. Are they being absorbed or is there any changes to the SFO? Absolutely not. It\u2019s important for us as a country. I think that your colleague made a very good speech earlier in the night about the fact that we have dropped behind a bit, in terms of corruption, and we want to reverse that; we are starting to reverse that. We are starting to head in the right direction and the SFO have played an important part of doing that in some of the pilots that they\u2019ve rolled out over the course of the term of this Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ESo, yes, they are more than capable of being able to immediately adopt\u2014in fact, they need this legislation because it\u2019s made it very difficult for them to operate at the moment. So this is going to be a huge enabler for them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u0022b070d4d52d5901512d6c3ae436ab2fba\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b070d4d52d5901512d6c3ae436ab2fba\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (23:34)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question\u2019s around commencement as well. A lot of that makes perfect sense: if you\u2019re going to execute a search warrant the day after it comes into force, you\u2019ve got a new set of rules; that\u2019s fine. My question, though, is about commencement of clause 8, section 22 of the Act amended. This is the legal search section, right? So if there was a search conducted yesterday, which was illegal under the current law, the evidence cannot be used and the guy gets off.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ESo my question\u2014you can see where I\u2019m going with this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002220dad9f56897728787515f43eaa21892\u0022\u003EHon Mark Mitchell\u003C/span\u003E: Yes\u2014yeah.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225ece80d92a69ceff7a9d98ad051cb8e8\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB\u003C/span\u003E: So my question is about retrospectivity, because any person charged, the generic rule is you\u2019re entitled to be charged with the offence as it was at the time it was committed. I don\u2019t know what the rule is about the changing of what\u2019s, essentially, arguably, a procedural rule, but also quite a substantive rule. I know that lawyers who are more detail oriented than me get really tied up whether the evidence is procedural or substantive. But it strikes me that it would be quite wrong for this legislation to validate a search and make evidence admissible. If it\u2019s not admissible today, then it shouldn\u2019t be admissible tomorrow. So I\u2019d be interested to get your views on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022b8038511ed8f6a134b3dece000337442\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b8038511ed8f6a134b3dece000337442\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police) (23:36)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I think that\u2019s a good question. But, look, to the first part of the question is that the reality of it was the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EPikia\u003C/span\u003E case highlighted the fact that the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) didn\u2019t have the legislation\u2014like we were saying, it\u2019s over 30 years old\u2014and so the court ruled that some of the warrants and the notices were unlawful. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe SFO didn\u2019t continue to operate in an unlawful way; they took notice of what the court ruling was and they had to change the way they were doing their work, but it made their work much more difficult. That\u2019s why we\u2019ve got this bill coming through the House now. The SFO have been working on this, they\u2019ve been aware that it\u2019s coming, and so they\u2019ve been getting ready to operationalise and understand exactly what the new powers are and how they\u2019re going to use them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c80aed8c7e7cd739b13dc19ac558e7f9\u0022\u003EHon Dr Duncan Webb\u003C/span\u003E: Are you going to be able to respond on the retrospectivity point?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e23da5e74455860eea97aa14e124bd18\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the legislation is not retrospective, no.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002274331f270814531a003dc07f14bcff22\u0022\u003EHon Dr Duncan Webb\u003C/span\u003E: So it\u2019s not intended to be retrospective?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002292b7857d5db07f106a389f34ef48d0a5\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill to be reported without amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHouse resumed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022307dac65ae5eb947af15960c4b791110\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the report be adopted\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EReport adopted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229445746aad790fdb58f125ed25e41c19\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: This bill is set down for third reading immediately.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00222f91986e918571f7ff0006358c24f4fa\u0022\u003EThird Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u00228b561509960aed20011ef0ee1b5b5b0b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228b561509960aed20011ef0ee1b5b5b0b\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police) (23:38)\u003C/span\u003E: on behalf of the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Justice\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill be now read a third time\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill amends the Serious Fraud Office Act, which has been in place for 36 years. It is outdated and is limiting the ability of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) to investigate and prosecute the criminals responsible for the most serious, complex fraud and corruption in New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill is carefully targeted. It is designed to address issues causing the greatest challenges for the SFO, its search warrant powers, and the legal test for evidential admissibility. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill will ensure the SFO can appropriately search and gather evidence of fraud, in an increasingly digital environment, by more effectively enabling the SFO to search digital devices and the cloud. This is crucial so it can prosecute cases and hold offenders to account. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill also makes several common-sense changes. These include enabling the SFO to access necessary utilities, like electricity, when conducting a search, and to exclude someone from a search site if there are reasonable grounds to suspect the person might compromise a search. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill updates the legal tests used in the SFO Act to determine the admissibility of evidence that was obtained unlawfully. The existing legal test is outdated, so the bill changes this to reflect the more modern and widely applied tests from the Evidence Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo conclude, it is critical that our laws continue to adapt in response to ever-changing landscape of financial crime, including advances in technology and how fraud is committed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EUltimately, the bill ensures the SFO has the tools it needs to hold serious fraudsters to account and to protect New Zealanders from the significant harm they cause. This Government has committed to restoring law and order and this bill is a practical example of how we\u2019re doing that. I\u2019m very happy to commend this bill to the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022071923e86c2decf7016ab2a1613dabec\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u00220b302dacdffc3f799880811f9b952f6f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220b302dacdffc3f799880811f9b952f6f\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (23:40)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Firstly, I thought that was a very good committee stage, actually. There were some good questions in there and I thought the Minister of Police and his officials answered well, so thank you for that engagement, Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe all agree that fraud and serious fraud is a serious blight. Sitting on the Justice Committee, we have had Karen Chang and her officials in and she has explained the strategy of the Serious Fraud Office to seek to uphold the Government\u2019s intention to address the slide that New Zealand has had on things like the Transparency International rankings and the view that corruption in public office and election fraud and those things which erode the foundations of our democratic society are important. I applaud that strategy. I agree that the tools are needed. This isn\u2019t blaming this Government, because we\u2019ve all let it slip by, right? But it\u2019s a bit unfortunate that we didn\u2019t do our housework and keep this bill up to date over the years. It\u2019s only when we have a case like \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ER v Pikia\u003C/span\u003E that it highlights the fact that we\u2019ve really got work to do. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn this final reading debate, I do want to just put one matter on the record very clearly, and that is that retrospectivity point. The commencement date is going to be in a few days\u2019 time, and this will be passed before the election, even though it probably won\u2019t be passed tonight. The Minister made it very clear in the committee of the whole House that there is no intention that any evidence that was gathered in breach of rules gets the benefit of the Evidence Act rule, which is the kind of proportionality test, but it will still be measured under the rule as it is right now under the Serious Fraud Office Act, which is that illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in court. That would comply, I think, with the principle of retrospectivity. It would comply with the general rule of interpretation that if there are two interpretations and one favours non-retrospectivity, that\u2019s the one we should adopt. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do think it\u2019s worth, as we go through\u2014one of the reasons we have this is that the conduct of the Serious Fraud Office in \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ER v Pikia\u003C/span\u003E was less than optimal, shall we say. I think it\u2019s a timely reminder that searches should be the least intrusive possible and that a search can be a reasonable search and it should be only as extensive as necessary, it should be conducted at a time that is the least intrusive possible, and the people who are conducting it should do so in a way which is, essentially, as humane as possible.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, in some cases\u2014less likely in fraud cases\u2014that\u2019s not going to be easy and it is going to be rushing in and bashing down the door and making sure everyone\u2019s safe and that there are no firearms and so on. I get that. But in other cases, it can be done with a lot more civility, and I think it\u2019s really important that that happens. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do think it\u2019s good that we now have much clearer requirements that the Serious Fraud Office has to go to the authorised or issuing officer with a clear framework of reasons and, essentially, comprehensive evidence. It was interesting to have that interchange with the Minister around the identity of informers and the balance to be struck. We might not have agreed entirely, but I think we agree that there will be cases where if you\u2019ve got someone who\u2019s an informer who is going to be let out on parole early because they\u2019ve shown themselves to be cooperative, then they\u2019ve got an incentive to not be entirely truthful, and we need to know that. That\u2019s also an important part of the framework there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do worry a little bit about the retention of documents, and my colleague Tracey McLellan also made some really good points, I thought, around documents which were not just private and confidential but also legally privileged. There is a challenge that when we download a hard drive, you get the lot. I\u2019m concerned that the Minister seemed happy with the Serious Fraud Office holding on to information indefinitely\u2014that was the word I think he used\u2014even when a decision not to prosecute has been made.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, if a decision has been made that this guy has done some stuff\u2014or person or woman has done some stuff\u2014which is shady but not illegal, so we can\u2019t prosecute them, then get rid of it, because they\u2019ve done nothing wrong. Well, they\u2019ve done nothing illegal\u2014wrong and illegal are two different concepts\u2014so you\u2019ve got no basis on which to hold that information. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do think there are some genuine concerns, but it\u2019s a bit of modernisation legislation. I do think it\u2019s good. I do think it\u2019s right that we focus in on the fact that this is a part of our infrastructure that supports our democracy. It\u2019s actually not about scams of, you know, old people\u2019s savings accounts. Serious and complex fraud\u2014which is the test in the Act itself\u2014is actually about systemic fraud, fraud which attacks the integrity of a system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, the current focus is on, essentially, our democratic and civil society, but it might equally be our banking system or our insurance system\u2014something that\u2019s of such a scale or nature as to be systemically important. It\u2019s important that we get this right and that\u2019s why the Serious Fraud Office is doing a good job in saying\u2014you know, they have got limited resources. It\u2019s a really small agency. We need to focus on the things that really matter and the outcome we want to see is a strengthened response to fraud, which systemically damages New Zealand as a free, liberal, and transparent democracy. With that, I will commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022aeb3b50d76d9c889c674433e67d9ac08\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022aeb3b50d76d9c889c674433e67d9ac08\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (23:47)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the third reading of the Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill. I would like to first thank the Minister of Police for his genuine engagement and thoughtful responses during the committee stage. With that, I would also like to thank all of the officials who are providing that advice to the Minister who are staying here rather late as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo start with, yes, the Green Party does support this bill. I believe that all of the questions that we have and any of the remaining concerns and questions from the select committee stage that we carried into the second reading have been responded to during the committee of the whole House stage. I think it\u2019s important just to sort of recapture some of those that we have discussed. I think it\u2019s really important, again, that while we\u2019re looking at potentially some of the carelessness that has been taken\u2014we\u2019re looking the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ER\u00A0v Pikia\u003C/span\u003E ruling by the Court of Appeal back in 2024, I believe, and some of the issues that were presented then. It\u2019s especially important that we get some of the nuances right and some of the limitations and boundaries with the expanded search power by the Serious Fraud Office correct when we are looking at the committee stage as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESome of the things that I think were really important and we had great kind of engagement and discussions around were the definitions of computer systems and things, particularly when we\u2019re looking at when something is around multiple jurisdictions as well. When we\u2019re looking at when something that is not simply looking from an electronic perspective, not simply when you\u2019re looking at a website or email address, but as technology evolves, how does that look in terms of apps, in terms of social media? But I also think, unfortunately, one of the things that we haven\u2019t really touched on\u2014and it only occurred to me now during the committee stage\u2014is when we are looking at some of these searches, what is the role of artificial intelligence in all of these when you are searching things that are potentially in other forms of media like ChatGPT or OpenAI, etc? How would, in terms of our justice system but also in terms of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), it be able to keep up with the type of technology that is being used. We are hoping that this bill will at least set an important baseline for the SFO to build on top of that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the things that the Minister mentioned during the committee of the whole House stage is that there are going to be instances where we have to test and potentially update and develop this bill, but only when additional case law presents itself. It does, again, come to what I mentioned in the second reading: if we are already able to maybe front-end some of this and look at it proactively, is there something that we can do additionally that provides guidelines\u2014even from a regulations perspective\u2014or allows for the continued development of this particular process? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOther additional things I want to touch on with this bill are around things like safeguards, which is in new clause 6, as well as the clarification and consistency when we\u2019re looking at the use of force. That has been a really important discussion for us to have. There have been some discussions around the ability for the issuing officer to issue a warrant to extend beyond the current limit of 14 days to 30 days, and allow for multiple occasions as well\u2014again, based on the complexity of that particular requirement and that particular search. It\u2019s also important that we managed to get clarification from the Minister when we were looking at \u201CEffect of warrant issued under Part 2\u201D\u2014so this is in replacement section 12A, inserted by clause 7\u2014that the limitation there, although not explicitly spelled out in clause 12A(1)(a), is still 30 days. That is an important consistency for us to be able to have.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn some of the additional parts\u2014again, as we are looking at absence and the development of the technology area\u2014I think some of the clarification we seek from the Minister regarding 12BA(1) where it specifically still requires email addresses, the clarification there is around the fact that it is a way to guide and to say that, to the best of their ability, anything from there will be sent to your email address. For example, I guess, on the completion of the search, on things that are being searched, how long they were in there for, what documents that were taken, etc.\u2014to the best of their ability to send it to you at a relevant email address, but when that\u2019s not available, there are other mechanisms in place to be able to do some of that work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do think that one of the final things in this particular bill that I want to touch on\u2014in a reflection from the committee stage\u2014are some of the things that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb mentioned in clause 8, particularly when it comes to the inadmissibility of evidence, which is again one of the reasons why this bill was brought into the House in the first place, and the common legal concept of the fruit of the poisoned tree. I think that\u2019s a really important one that, in conjunction with Schedule 1, we had a substantial discussion on. Again, it\u2019s important to get that clarification when we\u2019re looking at clause 8\u2014replacement section 22(3) being applicable when there\u2019s been no charges\u2014I think the Minister specified that it does not necessarily apply in the same way if it is to do with the inadmissibility of evidence. It would not apply when you\u2019re looking at an appeal, is my understanding from the conversation during the select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, I think this is an important bill, as we have heard, and as my colleague Celia Wade-Brown mentioned in the second reading. The importance of the Serious Fraud Office is to ensure both that we maintain that aspect of honest politics here in Aotearoa New Zealand when it comes to our democratic processes but also, at the same time, the Serious Fraud Office has a key role. One of the things we are constantly finding here is that while we\u2019re talking about aspects of crime, our approach to white collar crime \u2014for fraud, for tax evasion\u2014has never received the kind of funding that it really deserves, to be able to address those issues sufficiently. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn this particular case, we clearly, as a House, agree on the importance for us to address serious fraud, and I think Hon Dr Duncan Webb also mentioned, in this case, that it\u2019s not just simply when it comes to things like scams etc., but also when it comes to aspects of systemic importance\u2014things from our banking system, any other things that are potentially at an international and a multinational corporation level. Those are things that are really important for us to be able to equip our Serious Fraud Office to address sufficiently. I do believe that this is somewhere where we can see some increase in funding to allow them to do that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI agree with the Minister that the current Serious Fraud Office is doing its best to be able to undertake the kind of work that he needs to do, but one of the things that did concern me slightly in that particular response on the commencement date was the fact that the Serious Fraud Office has to prioritise. We understand the importance, with prioritisation, but when we\u2019re seeing agencies having to prioritise on the basis of lack of sufficient funding, that doesn\u2019t necessarily contribute to our political system, and we want to see the kind of honest politics and the kind of safety that we are providing for the people of Aotearoa New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWith that, the Green Party does support this bill. We thank the Minister for his engagement, and we thank the Minister for bringing this bill here. We will leave it and hopefully we will see some changes. Again, we will hopefully see some additional funding for the Serious Fraud Office.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022443f23de4cbd464f91833e6c466c98c0\u0022 data-id=\u00220ad40afdd84e97748e9e8c189b6d6823\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022443f23de4cbd464f91833e6c466c98c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220ad40afdd84e97748e9e8c189b6d6823\u0022\u003ETODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (23:57)\u003C/span\u003E: This bill is supported across the House, so I commend the Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022 data-id=\u0022c707c2c58f0a3d2cf93d58abe156da13\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c707c2c58f0a3d2cf93d58abe156da13\u0022\u003ETOM RUTHERFORD (National\u2014Bay of Plenty) (23:57)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Speaker, at this time, the Government wishes to lift the urgency motion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002294e8b8919be6b4ba6ed8e6c95111a946\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The Government has indicated that urgency will conclude. Therefore, this debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 1 September 2026.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EDebate interrupted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202608259c2183562e1ed69520007412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EThe House adjourned at 11.58 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n  \u003C/body\u003E\n\u003C/html\u003E"