Wednesday, 5 April 2017

WEDNESDAY, 5 APRIL 2017

WEDNESDAY, 5 APRIL 2017

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Voting

Correction—Resource Legislation Amendment Bill

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): During the Committee stage of the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill last night, owing to an administrative oversight on my part, no proxies were exercised on amendments on behalf of United Future. All those votes should have been in the negative, and I seek the leave of the House to have the record amended accordingly. My understanding is that the inclusion of those proxies does not affect the outcome of any of those particular results.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that particular amendment to a series of votes, as I understand it from what Mr Dunne has presented. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. The voting records will be amended accordingly.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Economic Programme—Fiscal Strategy, Research and Development, and Business Confidence

1. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Finance: What is the Government doing to ensure the longer-term strength of the New Zealand economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): This Government is continuing to implement its strong economic plan, focusing on building better public services and infrastructure, steadily reducing net debt as a percentage of GDP, and ensuring the benefits of economic growth are shared with Kiwi families. The results are paying off. New Zealanders are benefiting from more jobs being created, rising real wages, and lifts in exports. But, most importantly, we are also restoring resilience to the Government’s books so that New Zealand can withstand any future shocks that may come along.

Melissa Lee: How is the Government ensuring that New Zealand companies continue to innovate and develop valuable products over the long term?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Innovation and the development of new products and services is a very important part of ensuring a resilient economy, and new data released last week showed a significant jump in the research and development conducted by New Zealand companies. Businesses spent $1.6 billion in the year 2016, which was a 29 percent increase from the previous survey 2 years earlier. These figures are tangible evidence that the Government’s initiative to stimulate businesses to fund their own research and development activities, with the help of Callaghan Innovation and the research and development growth grant programme, is working and working well. In addition, rising research and development in New Zealand is a sign of the confidence that businesses have in themselves and in our economy.

Grant Robertson: Can he confirm that those research and development statistics released last week show that, as a percentage of GDP, the Government’s spending on research and development went down in the last year?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do not have that exact number in front of me, but, fortunately, I can confirm for the member that the Government programme known as Innovative New Zealand substantially increases research and development in New Zealand over the next few years. The important point for the member to note is that the increase in business-funded research and development was from 0.54 percent of GDP to 0.64 percent of GDP, which was very significant growth and, actually, the largest growth seen for many years.

Melissa Lee: What is the Government doing to ensure that the economic strength he talked about earlier is shared among the regions?

Dr David Clark: Well, that’s a good question. Good question.

Stuart Nash: Good question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Well, if it is a good question, then we will hear the answer.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Last week’s regional GDP growth figures demonstrate that most of our regions are growing well, notwithstanding some members talking them down. Through the regional growth programme, the Government is supporting opportunities in our regions to further boost investment, jobs, and incomes. In Northland, for example, the Tai Tokerau Northland Economic Action Plan contains over 50 actions to support and enable growth. Successes to date include the Government’s commitment of $4 million for the Hundertwasser Art Centre, the opening of the Pou Herenga Tai—Twin Coast Cycle Trail, and the supporting of the Tai Tokerau Resort College in the Bay of Islands.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: And the bridges? And the bridges?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This is on top of our very significant investment in new roads, new bridges, and ultra-fast broadband. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order, Mr Joyce!

David Seymour: What is the Government doing to ensure that this growth is shared with major metropolitan centres such as Auckland?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, let me count the ways. As a resident of that city myself—or just north of that city—I think we have all known that in that city, actually, it is quite hard to move for all the construction cones that are around the place at the moment. I think of the Southern Motorway widening, I think of the Auckland Airport motorway widening, I think of the Waterview tunnels, I think of the Southwestern Motorway, I think of the Northern Corridor, and that is just the roading projects.

Melissa Lee: What confidence do businesses have in the strength of the New Zealand economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Recent confidence surveys provide further evidence that New Zealand’s now nearly 6-year period of stable expansion will continue. In yesterday’s quarterly survey of business opinion, businesses reported that their own activity outlook remains strong, prompting the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) to state that annual growth in the New Zealand economy will remain solid, at around 3 percent per annum over the coming quarters. And today’s ANZ job data shows that the regions continue to lead the charge with more jobs, with every single one of the eleven non - main-centre regions experiencing stronger annual job ad growth, and, in fact, in most regions it is above 15 percent.

Grant Robertson: Well, in light of his reference to yesterday’s NZIER quarterly survey of business opinion, can he confirm that it shows a net drop in business confidence?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes, and I bring news to the member that, actually, confidence does vary month to month and quarter by quarter. But I am pleased to report to him that NZIER refers to a “modest drop in business confidence”. A net 16 percent of businesses expect better economic conditions, and businesses report their own activity holding firm, suggesting annual growth in the New Zealand economy will remain solid—around 3 percent over the coming quarters. But Mr Robertson is, you know, absolutely entitled to continue with his trainspotting.

Trade, China—Free-trade Agreement and Export Sector Performance

2. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements regarding New Zealand’s free-trade agreement with China; if so, why?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes. Our free-trade agreement (FTA) with China has been a success for New Zealand, and our exports have more than tripled since the FTA entered into force in October 2008. In fact, New Zealand now has a trade surplus with China.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If unqualified—and to quote him, “the FTA with China has been an enormous success”—why has New Zealand’s biggest company, Fonterra, performed so disastrously in China’s supposedly growing dairy market to the extent that Chinese companies have now got control over our high-value infant formula industry in just the last 6 years that he was Minister of Finance?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is really a matter for Fonterra and its shareholders. It is a private business. Its track record over time is that it has made decisions that create significant wealth for New Zealand. I am sure there are examples that that member can find where it has made decisions that did not work. That is business.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the trade imbalance since the FTA’s signing is $10 billion—and it is—in China’s favour, why is the door to high-value chilled lamb exports being opened only after China has got control of New Zealand’s largest meat exporter, Silver Fern Farms Ltd, Taranaki Abattoir Company Ltd, Prime Range Meats Ltd, Oamaru Meats, and Hutton’s?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the first instance, the member’s comment on trade balance does not take into account, I think, tourism, because, taken as a whole, essentially, we sell more to China than it sells to us. Secondly, the rural sector has waited many years for access of chilled meat to China, because it is worth considerably more as a chilled product than a frozen product. I would have thought the member would welcome the opportunity for businesses in the regions, including in his own electorate, to get better prices for their product. I cannot understand why he is against that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can New Zealanders trust that his Government is not selling them out when Chinese media reports, such as in the China Daily, report that National MP Dr Yang and the president of the National Party himself, Peter Goodfellow, are donkey deep in a new high-level Chinese business network?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would think that our members of Parliament ought to spend some time with people who run businesses and create jobs and investment. That may be a strange, new, and threatening idea to that member, but even the jobs in his own electorate will depend, to some extent, on the success with which businesses can export to China and other markets. I suggest the member visit a few businesses, talk to some of the people who work in them, and find out how the workers would like it if the businesses closed down and they did not have jobs.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Prime Minister preaching to someone who lives in his electorate when he does not; and what degree of—[Interruption] No, he does not. He is not called “Double Dipton” for nothing!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. [Interruption] Order! Now the member will rise. There are two supplementary questions there. Half the trouble is the tone of the questions that are being asked. I do not want to have to put up with more interjections coming from my right-hand side. If we can have a simple supplementary question in line with the Standing Orders, I would be extremely grateful.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What degree of naivety permeates the National Party mind that led to the Australian Government getting a free-trade deal with China far superior to ours, and why are we therefore forced to be upgrading it?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: New Zealand’s free-trade deal was signed up to in 2008 by the previous Government—with our support, because it was a good idea at the time. It has turned out, despite that member’s opposition, to be a very successful free-trade deal, including any number of businesses in his own electorate that benefit from it.

Hon Steven Joyce: He should visit his electorate.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I know he visits a lot of hospitality businesses, but he should try some export businesses.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a translation of the China Daily of 28 March this year about the donkey-deep nature of the National Party’s involvement.

Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that that would not be freely available to members, I will put the leave. The House will decide. Leave is sought to table that—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: What was it?

Mr SPEAKER: The member wants further explanation. It is a Chinese newspaper article that has been translated, and it was dated March this year. Leave is sought to table it. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Transport Infrastructure, Auckland—Rail, Roading, and Government Initiatives

3. JACINDA ARDERN (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Given the number of commitments his Government has made to achieve outcomes in 2040 or later, does he think that his Government is addressing important issues with sufficient urgency?

Mr SPEAKER: As I call the Prime Minister, I have been informed this answer may be longer than normal.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes, including some issues that are, by definition, long-term issues. We have been, for instance, the first Government in over 40 years to increase benefits for families with children. We have focused strongly on getting better results for children in our schools and on more people receiving the correct healthcare, including much higher immunisation rates. We have focused strongly on supporting families who are on welfare to get them into work, with the result that we now have 50,000 fewer children living in benefit-dependent households than we did in 2011. The Government is focusing strongly on investing to support the growth of the economy, which means that we now have record levels of infrastructure investment and building of houses.

Jacinda Ardern: Does he think the time it takes to travel from the CBD to Auckland Airport is acceptable; if not, why is he proposing to wait 30 years to fix it?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: It does take a while, and one of the reasons is the major project just outside of the airport, designed to speed up, exactly, the travel time. But we will continue to work intensively with Auckland Council on the basis of the common transport plan we now have, called the Auckland Transport Alignment Project. There will always be debate about what the priorities are. The Government is focused strongly on getting the Waterview Connection open, on the East-West Link, on the Northern Corridor Improvements—all multibillion-dollar projects—and on the City Rail Link (CRL), which the taxpayer is paying over a billion dollars for. These are all projects designed to improve transport in Auckland.

Jacinda Ardern: Given the New Zealand Transport Agency says traffic volumes to Auckland Airport have risen by a third in the last 4 years, how long does he expect the delays will get before he proposes delivering rail to the airport?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member could talk to the council and the Government officials who are working on it to get that level of technical detail. One of the next big steps, of course, will be the opening of Waterview and she may remember that this Government passed legislation that ensured that it was consented within 9 months, so now it is completed. If we had stuck with the Labour Party’s legislation, the construction on Waterview would be just getting going now, and, in fact, it is now almost finished.

Tim Macindoe: What recent steps has the Government taken to address some of the important issues facing New Zealand?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have announced a $500 million package of 1,100 more police staff—that is 1,100 more police staff. We have extended ultra-fast broadband to 151 towns and also made an announcement about a transition to a higher age for national superannuation over the next 20 years, a position that I think the member asking the question used to support until they recently changed their minds.

Jacinda Ardern: Will he do the same thing he did with the City Rail Link and postpone the growth and prosperity of Auckland as long as possible before finally conceding defeat and funding the infrastructure we so desperately need?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: There is always a list of projects in Auckland and this Government has invested in all the major projects. The CRL, of course, is a taxpayer subsidy to a project that is fundamentally the responsibility of Auckland Council, and 3 years ago this Government saw fit to pick up half the tab for that multibillion-dollar project and it is well under way. Over the next few years we hope that Auckland Council will have the same level of commitment of resource to transport projects in Auckland as the New Zealand Government does.

Jacinda Ardern: Can he confirm that by the time Auckland gets rail to the airport under his plan he will be 86, I will be 66, and Todd Barclay will be into his teens? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will now hear the answer.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I pointed out to the member—she may not have caught up with this, but the plan in Auckland is one that has been generated by the central government, Wellington, and the Auckland Council. For the first time ever we have a common transport plan, and consistent with that we are doing the Northern Corridor Improvements, the East-West Link, the CRL, Kirkbride Road, the Southern motorway, the South-western motorway—it goes on and on. It is a multibillion-dollar series of projects, and one of the reasons it is hard to get around Auckland is there is so much road construction going on, but you cannot avoid that.

Tim Macindoe: How is the Government’s solid and stable management of the economy and public services directly benefiting New Zealanders?

James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The primary question is about the achievements in the year 2040 or later. I think that Mr Macindoe’s question is about things that are happening now and, actually, it should relate to what is happening in 2040.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need assistance, when I consider where subsequent supplementary questions have gone and the answers that have been given, that question is quite in order to be answered.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course, some of the results of the Government’s support for the economy are quite immediate: 130,000 new jobs last year; lifting the minimum wage to $15.75 an hour, which was a campaign, I think, a few years ago for it to get to $15, and it is higher than that. But some of the impacts of policy are long-term. We just launched the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki, which is designed to have an impact that is multigenerational, and it is the first time a Government has taken that view of changing the life course of our most vulnerable children, just as our system for measuring the quality of fresh water has to be adapted to fit with what actually happens in ecosystems and how long it takes water bodies to change.

Jacinda Ardern: When his Government does not want to deliver rail investment or lower carbon emissions or cleaner water for decades, why is he so fond of kicking every kind of infrastructure deficit down the road for Labour to address?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: If the member had focused on Budgets, she would know that, I think, about $3 billion has been invested in KiwiRail, and that is before you get to the very significant Metro Rail investment. I could go through the list of roading and rail projects again for the member, if she would like the CRL, which is an over $2 billion project; the East-West Link, which is currently being consented; the Northern Corridor Improvements, which are currently being consented; Waterview, which will be open soon; Kirkbride Road, which is holding the member up when she is trying to get home from the airport; the electrification of rail in Auckland; the upgrade of the Wellington rail system—

Mr SPEAKER: Bring the answer to a conclusion.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: —very large infrastructure investment.

Fisheries—Regulation of Industry and FishServe

4. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he agree with the reported view of the Ministry for Primary Industries that there is nothing wrong with the fishing industry being allowed to monitor itself?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): No. The reported view is incorrect, and Newstalk ZB has now changed the headline that the member is referring to. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) never made such a statement, as it would be misleading. As the regulator, it is important that MPI retains independent oversight of the industry. However, I think there is benefit in allowing the industry to manage some administrative functions. There are five levels of audit in place to ensure the information is correct.

James Shaw: Does he see no conflict in having FishServe, a company that is owned by New Zealand’s fishing industry, monitoring the catch of species like red snapper, John Dory, and blue nose—all of which have been overfished by that industry?

Hon NATHAN GUY: Well, monitoring is indeed a broad term. Most people’s understanding of monitoring is about compliance monitoring. But punching and recording numbers is not the same as compliance monitoring. Compliance monitoring is the sole function of MPI; it is the regulator and it has complete access to FishServe’s records. As I mentioned in the answer to my primary question, there are five levels of audit as well.

James Shaw: Is he confident that FishServe is accurately reporting on overfishing, given that MPI identified errors in 17 percent of forms reporting commercial fishers’ catch?

Hon NATHAN GUY: Yes, I do have confidence in the audits that are in place. Of course, they pick up any issues as they work their way through. There is an MPI audit, there is a financial audit that is done by Ernst & Young, there is a FishServe internal audit, and there is also catch effort auditing. And the member may be aware that MPI is going to be rolling out, starting on 1 October this year, electronic reporting. As a result of that, that will speed up the efficiency of FishServe. It will actually also mean more transparency and moving away from paper-based records, where there are currently some errors.

James Shaw: Can the Minister confirm that in 2013 he gave FishServe new powers to determine when bans on commercial fishing could take effect in overfished areas?

Hon NATHAN GUY: First of all, these powers were originally devolved to FishServe in 2001 by Pete Hodgson. The 2013 Order in Council just rolled them over. The changes that I made in 2013 were making FishServe the approved service delivery organisation; before this it was the Seafood Industry Council. And, secondly, allowing FishServe to manage client number management in sequencing, i.e., one, two, three, four—very technical changes indeed.

James Shaw: Surely he will concede that if FishServe has the power to decide when fishing bans take effect, then it does have a regulatory role in the fishing industry?

Hon NATHAN GUY: I think I have addressed that already this afternoon by saying that FishServe is basically just a collection of data. MPI has access to all that data. When a fisher, indeed, does go over their annual catch entitlement (ACE) they need to go and get more ACE, or, indeed, there is a financial penalty through deemed values that I set, as Minister.

James Shaw: Can he assure the House that there is nothing in the 14 reports on fish dumping investigations, which MPI is currently refusing to release to university researchers, that raises the same kinds of issues highlighted in the Operation Achilles scandal last year?

Hon NATHAN GUY: MPI has been incredibly transparent, particularly on the back of the Heron report, where there was a huge amount of information that was released. MPI has continual investigations under way, and when they are at specific stages it is not appropriate for it to release that information.

James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question, then, was quite specific, in relation to the 14 reports—the 14 specific reports—that MPI is currently withholding from university researchers. The Minister did not address those reports.

Mr SPEAKER: No, but the question was not specific enough. It talked about “Can he assure the House there is nothing in those 14 reports?”, and mentioned that they were being withheld. The first thing is, the member responded by saying MPI is very transparent. The question has been addressed.

James Shaw: Yes!

Mr SPEAKER: If the members want assistance—and I have told the House many, many times—with their questions, tighten them up.

James Shaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will he ask MPI to release the 14 reports on fish dumping investigations that it is, so far, refusing to release?

Hon NATHAN GUY: The member has been in the House a while now; he should know that politicians do not get involved in matters that are to do with prosecutions or investigations. I do not tell MPI when to release official information; it releases it itself when it is ready.

Regional Economic Development—GDP Statistics and Government Support

5. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister for Economic Development: What reports has he received on regional economic growth across New Zealand?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister for Economic Development): Last week Statistics New Zealand released GDP statistics for New Zealand’s 15 regions, which showed the regions continue to grow strongly, with 12 of our 15 regions seeing economic growth in the year to March. The strongest growth was seen in the Bay of Plenty, with a very strong 7.7 percent. Meanwhile Northland, Auckland, Waikato, Manawatū, Wanganui, Wellington, Canterbury, and Otago all grew by more than 3 percent. All up, across New Zealand, this led to growth for the year of 2.1 percent, and it is being driven by such factors as strong construction and tourism activity, as well as a falling exchange rate and low inflation rates.

Dr Shane Reti: How is the Government working with regional New Zealand to ensure it continues to grow strongly?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: We are working intensively with 10 regions through the Business Growth Agenda and the regional growth programme to help lift the growth rates in the years ahead. We are committed to helping every region in New Zealand achieve its potential, by both attracting new investors and investing in the infrastructure for growth—be it ultra-fast broadband to 150 more regional towns or key regional transport projects up and down the country. Economic action plans have already been launched for Tai Rāwhiti, East Coast, Southland, Bay of Plenty, Northland, Hawke’s Bay, and Manawatū-Wanganui, and we are now looking at action plans for the West Coast and Canterbury.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table information from the Parliamentary Library that says that the average growth rate for the last 10 years in Northland is 1.4 percent.

Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that information. Is there any objection to it being tabled? No. It can be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Health Services—Auckland Typhoid Outbreak

6. Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statements in response to yesterday’s urgent question on the typhoid outbreak in Auckland where a 52-year-old woman has died?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes.

Dr David Clark: When should his officials have publicly notified there was a death caused by a typhoid outbreak—the day public health officials learnt about it; 3 days later, when the Ministry of Health finally found out; or 4 days after that, once family members, Church, and Church community had come in contact with the woman who had died from typhoid fever, as well as other potentially affected relatives and community members?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, that is a matter of judgment, but I think what can be said is that lessons will be learnt from this whole episode. The point I would make, though, is that typhoid is actually spread either by water-borne means or by the handling of food by people who have been infected. So there is not a risk, I am advised, of contracting it from a person who is deceased.

Dr David Clark: Can he confirm that the woman who died, her friends, her immediate family, and two connected Church communities were never told by his ministry that she had typhoid fever, that it is contagious, and that these communities learnt of the seriousness of the situation only through media reports 1 week later?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, I cannot confirm that. It is not the role of the ministry to communicate information. It would be the role of the Auckland Regional Public Health Service. It has the responsibility in this case.

Dr David Clark: Does he think it is adequate to have only one dedicated professional with Samoan language and cultural expertise in an already stretched Auckland public health service to respond to disease outbreaks in a population of over 1.4 million people?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: That is an interesting and valid question, and that is one of the matters that will be addressed in the debrief—

Dr David Clark: Oh, for goodness’ sake! You’re the Minister.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: —just listen to the answer—and they do need to look into exactly what has gone on in terms of the liaison and the communication. That is an important point that will be raised.

Dr David Clark: Were cases at Auckland City Hospital isolated and quarantined as soon as typhoid was diagnosed?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: All the advice I have had is that they have been absolutely clinically correctly handled.

Dr David Clark: Not true.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, it is true.

Dr David Clark: Is it not actually true that when this woman died last week on Monday, public health officials already knew they were dealing with typhoid since they had been dealing with an outbreak since as early as 20 March, when three other members of the same Mount Albert Church community were admitted to hospital subsequent to an earlier Church event?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: My understanding is that 20 March was not the date of the notification of the first case. But, look, all of this will come out when the Auckland Regional Public Health Service reviews its handling of this whole outbreak.

Police, Minister—Confidence

7. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Minister of Police; if so, why?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes, because she is a competent and capable Minister and is working with the Police to implement a $500 million package that involves a net increase of 1,100 new police staff over the next few years.

Ron Mark: How can he have confidence in his Minister of Police when she made a premature announcement on 14 February that there would be 140 new rural officers, yet has no idea where they would go, and on 23 March she stated that district commanders were currently doing an analysis on what Police’s needs are?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: There have not been any premature statements. The Police put together a case for more resource. The Government ultimately came forward with a proposal for 1,100 new police staff. The member may not be aware but the Minister of Police does not allocate the staff. That is the statutory responsibility of the police commissioner. In fact, the Minister is not allowed to direct the police commissioner around detailed matters of staffing allocation, so the member may want to address his questions to the commissioner, who seems to be working with the district commanders.

Ron Mark: What confidence can the public have in her pledge to recruit and train 880 new officers when the Herald on Sunday confirmed that police, due to budget constraints, have cancelled 13 training courses, and deferred another nine, including Criminal Investigation Branch induction, child protection, specialist interview techniques, and crime scene photography?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is the responsibility of the commissioner to ensure that he has a professional and well-trained police force. It is up to him and, as I understand it, it is not unusual for him to make decisions that might shift resources around. But he can be assured that the Government is funding and has committed to 1,100 new staff, including 880 new uniformed staff.

Ron Mark: Why does he have confidence in her when 2 weeks ago she showed her ignorance of facts: when asked whether police staff were being made redundant she denied it, only for the Police Association—

Hon Paula Bennett: No, I didn’t. You said 200.

Ron Mark: Settle, Petal.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member’s question is very long. The interjection then—which was in response to an interjection, I accept—is not helpful. The member will start his question again and I do not want an interjection from my right hand side.

Ron Mark: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why does he have confidence in her when 2 weeks ago she showed her ignorance of facts: when asked whether police staff were being made redundant she denied it, only for the Police Association and the Road Transport Association to join New Zealand First in saying jobs were being axed and threatening the safety of trucks on our roads?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the member is probably wrong about what he said, which would not be unusual. The police have done a very good job of changing the way they operate to improve the safety of our communities and our roads. I know that the member, as has been his habit in the past, likes to retail police-type gossip, but they are doing a fine job and the member should stop trying to undermine their credibility.

David Seymour: How does the Prime Minister think the Minister of Police feels being called a petal by a toadstool?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That will not help the order of the House, Mr Seymour, and the question is out of order.

Stuart Nash: How can he have confidence in his Minister of Police when police are so under-resourced that on Sunday a liquor store manager was told that an officer could not be sent less than 100 metres over the road from the Newmarket Police Station to arrest a shopkeeper he had caught.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the member is referring to arresting the shoplifter, not the shopkeeper. Look, I am advised the police receive 4,600 111 calls not every month or every week but every day, and we trust their professionalism to make the best decisions instantaneously on the spot, without consulting the Opposition or the Minister of Police about where they can deploy police for the safety of our community. I can understand the shopkeeper’s concern about it. The practicality is that someone on the end of the phone has to make a snap decision.

Ron Mark: How can he or anyone have confidence in that Minister when this answer to a police Official Information Act (OIA) request, received on 24 March 2017, shows that at 3.45 on the morning of 17 January there were only 238 officers on duty from Kaitāia to Bluff, including just three officers for the whole of Northland?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have confidence in the Commissioner of Police, who runs—

Ron Mark: You’re hanging him out to dry.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, I know that if the member had the opportunity, he would like to run the police rosters, but, actually, in New Zealand that is unlawful. The police commissioner has to run the police rosters and I know that over time, within the constraints of the complex industrial relations arrangements that the police have, he has changed considerably the way it works to ensure that more police are on when more crime is likely to be committed.

Ron Mark: I seek leave to table a revised police OIA received on 24 March 2017 that states that at 3.45 on 17 January—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! We do not need any more of the description, because it was well and truly contained in the question. Leave is sought to table that particular OIA response dated 24 March 2017. Is there any objection? There is not.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Defence Force—Afghan Civilian Deaths Allegations

8. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes, in the context in which they were made.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that he said yesterday, in the context of question time, that “If there was substantial evidence of civilian deaths, we are interested in that.”, and given former defence Minister Wayne Mapp’s comments that “it was also possible there were other casualties. In particular, the death of a 3-year-old girl.”, how can he possibly conclude that an inquiry into the actions by all New Zealand and other coalition troops is not required?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do stand by the statement, and as I have stated, the reason why we have not initiated an inquiry is that the Chief of Defence Force, following his statutory obligations, has investigated the claims of war crimes and misconduct made in a recently published book and has found that those claims have not been substantiated, including the fact that the locations talked about in the book are locations where New Zealand troops did not go.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that the basis of evidence that the Prime Minister just cites comes from the party that would actually be itself investigated, and given that the Prime Minister of 2017 disagrees with the Minister of Defence of 2010, who has recently said “As a nation we owe it to ourselves to find out”, is that not a sufficient case for an inquiry?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I understand that the former Minister of Defence, who made these comments as a private citizen, based them on a documentary aired a number of years after the incidents—a documentary put together by one of the authors of the book. So he watched a documentary and then made commentary based on that, which was then republished in a book and published in the media. So it does not amount to any new analysis or any new information, but I can assure the member that all the evidence I have seen demonstrates that New Zealand troops at all times acted consistent with their rules of engagement and with the level of professionalism and care that we would expect them to operate to, even in circumstances where there is real pressure and real danger.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that the basis of evidence that the Prime Minister continues to cite in the last answer represents the same party that would itself be under investigation, how is this not a case where an inquiry is justified, under the Inquiries Act 2013, on a matter of public importance where the members of the inquiry must act “independently, impartially, and fairly”?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Really for two reasons—first is that these inquiries were made within days of the event, by the coalition forces and the Afghan Government and police at the time, who were independent and acting on assertions that there were civilian casualties. The facts as adduced then have been consistent right through. Nothing has actually altered. The Chief of Defence Force has legal obligations to investigate these things. It is not a matter of whether we think he should; he has to, under our law. I am persuaded by the professionalism of the Chief of Defence Force and made it clear that if there was any sense that the defence forces were misleading the civilian government that controls them, that would be a very serious matter. I do not believe there are any grounds to believe that the Defence Force has acted in a misleading way.

Budget 2017—Government Priorities and Superannuation Fund Contributions

9. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with former Prime Minister John Key that a meaningful tax cut would cost “$3 billion I reckon”, and is this a higher priority for him in the upcoming Budget than restarting contributions to the New Zealand Super Fund?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): I agree with the former Prime Minister that that amount would certainly represent a meaningful tax cut, but I also think that a $1 billion package or a $1.5 billion or a $2 billion package, depending on how it was targeted and over what time period, might also represent a meaningful tax cut. In terms of priorities for Budget 2017, I have publicly set these out and helpfully will do so for the member again—firstly, delivering Better Public Services for a growing country; secondly, building the infrastructure we need in a modern economy; third, paying down debt as a percentage of GDP, with a target of achieving 20 percent of GDP by 2020-21, at which time we would restart contributions to the Superannuation Fund. And, finally, we remain committed to reducing the tax burden and, in particular, the impact of marginal tax rates on lower- and middle-income earners, when we have the room to do so.

Grant Robertson: Was John Key correct when he said that a $1 billion tax cut package would only give average earners $7 or $8 a week and was not a meaningful tax cut?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I see what the member is trying to do, but I do not propose to design the 2017 Budget on the floor of the House today.

Grant Robertson: If he is going to spend $3 billion on tax cuts, what essential social spending programmes will not be funded, to afford those cuts?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Budget is coming. I do believe we intend to have the House receive the Budget on 25 May this year. There are not too many more sleeps left yet, Mr Robertson, and all these questions will be answered at that time.

Grant Robertson: We are going to enjoy the next few weeks. Does he think that Adrian Orr, chief executive of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, was referring to him yesterday when he said “Recent public comments illustrate that many people don’t understand what the New Zealand Super Fund is and what it does”, given his reluctance to restart contributions to the fund?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Mr Orr would have to speak for whom he was referring to, but I actually read that and thought he was referring to Mr Robertson.

Grant Robertson: Was the Superannuation Fund wrong to describe comments such as his, that it is wrong to save for the future when there is debt to be repaid, by describing those comments as misleading, or will he now admit that it is just his ideological addiction to tax cuts that is putting restarting contributions to the Superannuation Fund last in his priorities?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In terms of the member’s apparent quotation of my comments, he is incorrect. But, actually, I would say to him that it is important to think of the incomes of people today, as well as the incomes of people in the future. The member and his party often come down to the House and talk about the spending pressures on low- and middle-income earners or housing costs for people and, actually, their incomes are very, very important when you are considering those matters. So the member may say he does not care, but I certainly do.

Meat Industry—Chilled Meat Exports to China

10. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent agreement has the Government made to support export growth in the red meat sector?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Recently, trade Minister Todd McClay and I announced a memorandum of cooperation that allows for the chilled export of meat into China. This 6-month trial will initially involve 10 meat establishments, agreed in conjunction with industry. China is New Zealand’s second-largest market for beef and sheep exports. New Zealand exported around $1 billion worth of frozen sheep and beef exports last year. It is a trade that has grown by five times since 2011. It is a fantastic story.

Sarah Dowie: How will this announcement increase the value of our red meat exports?

Brett Hudson: Good question.

Hon NATHAN GUY: That is a very good question. Chilled meat is worth around twice the value of frozen meat, and this announcement will, potentially, be worth hundreds of millions of dollars for our red meat sector down the track. With great air links to China, our exporters now have the opportunity to fill returning planes with chilled meat as demand grows. Also, the recently signed veterinarian agreement with Iran opens up this market for sheep and beef products. In the 1980s, they took one in every four sheep that were exported. I am very proud of what the Government has achieved for meat exporters, ultimately lifting farm gate returns.

Social Services—Private Client Data-sharing Requirements and Advice

11. CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Minister for Social Development: What advice did she receive from the Privacy Commissioner during the development of the private client data-sharing requirements for contracted social services?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I did not directly receive any advice from the Privacy Commissioner during the development of the proposal to collect individual client-level data. I did, however, receive a letter from the Privacy Commissioner on 10 March this year regarding his provisional conclusion of his inquiry into the proposal to collect individual client-level data. I had a constructive meeting with the Privacy Commissioner on 14 March to discuss this, and I understand that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has been working closely with the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) throughout the development of this proposal to ensure client’s privacy rights are protected.

Carmel Sepuloni: How can we trust that the Government is “working collaboratively with the Privacy Commissioner” and “will listen to any recommendations that he has to make”, when she ignored the recommendations of the Privacy Commissioner during the development of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I refute the assertions in that question.

Carmel Sepuloni: Why is she still going ahead with the collection of private client data from social services, when 62 percent of people felt that data should not be shared between organisations, as the risks outweigh the benefits, and numerous social service providers have spoken out against it, as well as privacy lawyer Kathryn Dalziel and University of Canterbury Dean of Law, Ursula Cheer? Is it because she thinks she is right and all of these service users and experts are wrong?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I have said many times before, we need this information so that we can better understand what services people need and use. That means we can target our funding to those services that New Zealanders find most beneficial and that actually produce results. Collecting and sharing this information is essential if we are to ensure that people do not fall through the cracks and that we are supporting the most vulnerable in our community. MSD and, now, the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki spend $330 million of taxpayers’ money every year providing social services in our communities. Everyone would desire that that money be spent efficiently and effectively, and that is what we are attempting to do.

Carmel Sepuloni: How can she and her department continue to railroad social service providers for private client data, using their funding, when last night she had to shut down the portal where providers submit their data because it was compromised?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I understand that the ministry was made aware that a provider’s folder, which did not contain any information or content, was viewable by other users of the system.

Carmel Sepuloni: What if it did contain content?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No, it had no content in it. As a result of that portal and in light of that technical issue, I met with the chief executives of MSD and the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki this morning and insisted that we stop using that Department of Internal Affairs portal, because I do not have the level of confidence required in the system. I have instructed them to go away and come up with an alternative solution. I have also asked that that alternative solution be independently assessed, and I would welcome the Privacy Commissioner’s involvement in that system development.

Carmel Sepuloni: If the Privacy Commissioner’s report that is due to be released to the public tomorrow recommends delaying or cancelling altogether the Government’s plan for private client data-sharing requirements for contracted social services, will she put in place his recommendations?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The Privacy Commissioner has not even released his report, so it would be most inappropriate for me to comment on it. I do not have responsibility for his report. But what I can say is that I welcome his report and I will be asking both MSD and the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki for advice on the matters that he raises. As I say, I met with him recently and I look forward to working with him to address any concerns that he may have.

Project 1000—Matariki: Hawke’s Bay Regional Economic Strategy and Action Plan 2016

12. ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister for Social Development: What updates can she provide on the progress of Project 1000?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): In July last year the Government launched the Matariki: Hawke’s Bay Regional Economic Development Strategy and Action Plan 2016, which included as one of the actions Project 1000. This is focused on supporting 1,000 local people, including beneficiaries, into new jobs over the next 3 years. I am absolutely delighted to report that, to date, 231 people have been placed into employment and that we are well on track to meet that target of 1,000 people by July 2019. That is fantastic news because the evidence tells us that there are significant financial and social benefits to being in work. By encouraging businesses to employ local people, we are supporting the regional labour market and helping people to get ahead.

Alastair Scott: What are some of the initiatives in place to help link up businesses with people who are looking for work?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: There are currently 16 initiatives that sit under Project 1000, because we are working collaboratively with employers on the ground to achieve that target of connecting 1,000 people with sustainable work. These include employer-led initiatives in the horticulture sector and partnerships with iwi and hapū. Other initiatives include partnerships with local government organisations and the health sector, such as the one between the Ministry of Social Development, the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board, and the Hastings District Council, which will support up to 50 youth into paid community project positions with a focus on clients with health conditions and disabilities.

General Debate

General Debate

JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I think that we need to reclaim the word “great”. We need to reclaim it from those who would use it like a weapon and reclaim it from those who hark back to a past that never existed and who seek to use it for the 1 percent and not for everybody. New Zealand is truly a great place to live, and it is great because of the people who live here. But we do need to keep it that way and to lift it higher. We need to give a voice to the voiceless. We need to look after everyone.

I want to tell the story of Justin Duckworth, who is the current Bishop of Wellington. He started out looking after street people and fostering teenage girls. He set up a community of young people in Wellington who are on the edges of society, creating a community to look after each other and to include people. He decided that more people were needed, especially given the mental health situation here, so he raised money and bought some land up the Kāpiti coast to give street people a home, a place to live, and a place to be included. He was elected bishop in order to lead a similar change in the wider Church. That is greatness.

We are great when we seek to include, not exclude. New Zealanders are great because we expect more of our Government than what we are getting. We expect a Government that does not seek to kick things down until 2040 or 2050 but actually faces the huge challenges that we are facing today. We are not satisfied with a Government that wants to have tax cuts for those who are better off, at the expense of core public services and creating an inclusive society and a sustainable economy, that cuts health and education but ignores climate change, and that ignores the poor and the state of our waterways.

We are great because we care for each other and because we want the best for each other. We are great when everyone is able to afford a safe and a warm home, whether they rent or they own. We are great when we choose to lead the world and to face up to the challenges of our time, like climate change. We are great when we can safely swim in our rivers, or when we can trust the water that comes out of our tap. We are great when we can trust our Government to be transparent and to be accountable and to be responsible to the voters who put it there. That is the country that we are looking for.

New Zealand is a great country, and we want it to continue to be great, for our children and for our grandchildren. It worries me that this year there is the possibility that we can make a choice like that which has been made by other countries around the world, to go down the path of populism and nationalism and misogyny, and that we cannot afford. We cannot allow that to have any part in our political discourse. That is when we are not at our greatest. And that is what I hope that this year will be all about; we are great because we love to include. We love our children, we love our grandchildren, and we want to maintain this country the way that it is, with what that promise of greatness is. Thank you.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister for Economic Development): After a speech like that, no wonder Labour is starting to cut the Greens’ lunch. The statistics were out last week. They are done by Statistics New Zealand. Sometimes they are up, sometimes they are down, but what they show quite clearly in regional New Zealand, all around the country, is that we are growing and we are going well as a country. Out of the 15 regions in New Zealand, 12 have had really good—actually, I would argue strong—GDP growth in the last year. The Bay of Plenty, where I hail from—7.7 percent growth. That is remarkable, on the back of a productive sector with a huge amount of services work. There is kiwifruit, which I know, Mr Speaker, you know a bit about from past careers. In Auckland there was 6 percent regional GDP growth. Otago had 4.8 percent regional GDP growth. And there were others—actually, quite a number of others—at 3-plus percent growth. Whether it is Northland, Mr Peters; whether it is Waikato; or whether it is, Mr McKelvie, Manawatū-Wanganui, and that is not just your farming empire, Mr McKelvie, that has created that growth; or whether it is Canterbury, we have had very strong regional growth in this country—a national increase of some 4.1 percent.

In fact, if you think about the last 5 years in this country, despite the global financial crisis, despite the global economic conditions, despite earthquakes, despite droughts, and actually despite floods—I was almost going to say pestilence—and despite commodity price fluctuations, we have had strongly growing regions in this country, and that is a fantastic thing to see. Despite what nature has thrown us as a country, despite what global conditions have thrown us, we have had strong regions in this country. We should not take that for granted, actually.

Can I thank New Zealanders all around this country who have got up, who have had a go, who have had innovation, who have been productive in what they have done. They deserve the credit for the growth of this country in recent years, but what is also true is that there has been strong economic leadership from the leaders of the Government. I single out, in particular, Bill English, our former Minister of Finance and now the Prime Minister of New Zealand. He has balanced our books. He has ensured, with the sectors of New Zealand, that we have a more competitive, productive economy. Contrast that with overseas. Contrast that with what we have seen in America, where the so-called rust belt—actually, parts of that have gone backwards, regionally speaking. In the UK, not entirely, but some parts of the North have gone backwards.

Here we have got growing regional economies all over New Zealand. We have got a diversifying economy. Agriculture and primary production has been and continues to be a really strong part of our country and our GDP. But, of course, services have really come up to take their load, whether it is tourism, whether it is international education, or whether it is other areas, as well. And ICT being the third biggest export for New Zealand today just shows that, actually, it is an increasingly sophisticated economy that we have, as well—along with niche manufacturing and many other areas. We have had unprecedented infrastructure investment. We are building a more resilient economy, and, of course, all of this—the growing economy, all that we are doing, the resilience we are building in—means that whether it is Canterbury or whether it is Kaikōura, the leadership of New Zealanders—the leadership by Bill English—means that we are able to cope with those things that are thrown at us.

And it has been inclusive growth, spread geographically throughout New Zealand. Even the bottom three, can I say—we take the West Coast, Southland, and Taranaki, three regions that were down a bit on the last figures. They are traditionally our strongest economies, hit by commodity prices in the last year, but still strong, still resilient, and diversifying their economies, and the Government has plans in those areas. Of course, all of this—the regional GDP, the growth that we are seeing around New Zealand—is not just for the sake of it. It is not just so that we can talk about the numbers. What it means is more real jobs, just like Anne Tolley was talking about with Project 1000 and just like we are seeing with Growing Regional Opportunities through Work (GROW) Kaikohe, another Government initiative up in the North. It means higher incomes across New Zealand. Just as we are getting that, the resilience and so on, there—

Mr SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): The Māori Party claims to be the independent voice for Māori, but its voting record and its policy priorities are nothing but a sham. The Māori Party is showing that its true agenda is one of privatisation, empowering corporate elite, and cutting secret deals with its National mates behind closed doors. We have seen all of this. It voted to sell off State houses, it cut a dodgy deal with National over the despised Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms, and it is driving through unwanted Māori land reforms in the face of massive opposition.

Meanwhile, on urgent, critical issues facing Māori, like a lack of emergency, social, and affordable housing, we get what? Silence. When the emergency housing blowout scandal dominated headlines a month ago we got silence. We waited an entire week for either Te Ururoa Flavell, our Minister for Māori Development, or Marama Fox to come out and rage against the injustice of Māori whānau and thousands being moved from cramped motel to cramped motel, but all we got was silence. They came to be the independent voice, but silence is all the Māori Party has to offer our people on critical issues that really matter, like having a safe, dry, and warm home; like having a sustainable job; like workers’ rights; and like access to affordable and quality healthcare.

The housing crisis disproportionately affects Māori, and it should be a key priority kaupapa for the Minister for Māori Development. It is his job to lead public policy for Māori and to provide guidance to the Government about policies affecting Māori well-being. The only comments on housing that you will get from the Minister is when he can promote a papakāinga project as evidence that Māori are finding our own solutions to housing. Papakāinga is a hugely positive and worthwhile initiative—started under Labour, I might add—but it is a drop in the ocean.

Where is the leadership from Te Ururoa Flavell? Where is the leadership to speak up for whānau sleeping in cars, garages, and cramped motel units? Where is he? Hundreds of years of institutional knowledge is getting gutted out of the Māori Land Court. I will tell you where he is; he is pushing through Te Ture Whenua reforms that are massively unpopular and unwanted by Māori land owners, Māori legal experts, academics, institutes, and leaders. Where is the leadership, Mr Flavell? Mr Te Ururoa Flavell’s and Marama Fox’s silence on the issues that really matter to Māori is really an admission that they have no influence on this Government where it counts. And when they are called out and held to account, they say criticism is either playing politics, or even lies. That is not debate; that is lazy analysis and an attempt to shut down debate.

The Māori Party has sold out on the RMA reforms. Nobody wants this bill and it is only the two votes from the Māori Party that will get it over the line. They cut a secret deal outside of the select committee process to ensure National and Nick Smith will pass this bill. The concessions that it has gained for iwi participation is nothing compared with what it has put at risk. Iwi and hapū already have 123 co-governance arrangements with local authorities in New Zealand—83 percent of local authorities already have some kind of arrangement with Māori, either through memorandums of understanding, advisory boards, or joint committees. The Māori Party is missing the big picture on National’s Resource Management Act reforms by supporting a fundamentally flawed bill.

Now more than ever a vote for the Māori Party is a vote for National. Voters were coming back to Labour last election because they know we can provide the stable leadership and support they need. They know we are going to build 100,000 affordable homes, 6,000 more emergency beds, and pump more funding into healthcare. We are going to invest in resources to grow jobs and we going to invest in our classrooms where the need is wanted. Our Māori MPs in Labour are united and valued, and we are listening to our people. Kia ora tātau.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Children): I have to say there is nothing more unedifying in this House then seeing Māori attack other Māori. [Interruption] And I have to say—[Interruption] I have to say that that member is running scared because the Māori Party is giving leadership to our iwi up and down the country, and that member, Meka Whaitiri, should be very afraid for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti.

It is not often that I get to stand in the House—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I cannot hear the speaker.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am really keen today to talk about some fantastic stuff that is happening in Tai Rāwhiti, backed, I have to say, by hard work from our Minister for Māori Development, the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell. I am very proud of the work that this Government is doing, working hand in hand on economic development for our regions.

Several of my Cabinet colleagues—in fact, there were five of us—stood in the Gisborne Memorial Hall recently to launch the Tai Rāwhiti economic action plan. This plan was not one where we sailed in, made a big announcement, and sailed out again. This is one that we have been working on with businesses, with iwi, with local government on the ground—talking about the things that they need the Government to support, that they want to do, and that they need Government support for. This was a locally focused plan that was driven by local businesses, and that is the difference between this side of the House and the other side of the House, which believes that just by popping into Gisborne every now and then, and promising a bit of money, they are going to get their votes. Well, actually, Gisborne people are much more intelligent than that. They are much more intelligent, because they know what they want.

They launched two plans that day—one, by iwi who have a very clear vision for what they want to achieve for their people up and down in Tai Rāwhiti. The local businesses also have a clear vision and they know exactly what they want from the Government. They asked for it and we gave it to them, by and large—a $2 million contribution to the most exciting wood processing facility that this country has seen. This is a new industry that uses 21st century techniques to achieve high-quality wood products from low-quality pine trees, at the moment. There is exciting stuff happening in Tai Rāwhiti, and I just wish that we could all get together to celebrate what is happening.

There is huge scope in this part of the world—there is huge scope. We have the greatest resource: the people of the Tai Rāwhiti region. I was pleased to announce just under $2 million in extra support to work with particularly youth—supporting people into long-term sustainable employment, because unemployment is a big issue in Gisborne and Tai Rāwhiti, and there is a huge desire from local businesses to employ local people. So in that package we included a number of initiatives, including a youth employment strategy, not our strategy—supporting one that has been developed by local people for their own youth.

There is a pilot to help rehabilitate young people from drug use, which is a problem in the area, and help them into work. There is truck driver training. There is help to get a driver’s licence, and there is a horticultural sector coordinator. This is something that they particularly asked for. Anyone who knows the Gisborne region knows that it is a very diverse area, and seasonal workers can move from one industry to another. So we are trialling ways to get that sector working together so that people can move from a different industry, or to give them all-year-round work.

I am absolutely delighted that this Government has chosen to work with a number of regions, supporting businesses to grow their capability, to grow their local employment, and we are supporting them to make money for the area. One of the recent decisions was to allow the fantastically scenic rail track from Gisborne to Wairoa to be used for a cycle trail. I think that is a really good use for a rail line that nobody used. [Interruption] Nobody used it. Nobody was prepared to sign on the dotted line to use it, so we are now putting that to good use. This Government supports the regions.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Before I start, I want to, regretfully, criticise this Government on a very serious matter. This week we saw the heinous terrorist bombing in St Petersburg that has so far claimed the lives of 14 innocent people and wounded 50 more. New Zealand First wanted to put in for a debatable motion but held off in the belief that the Government would have put one up, following the recent bombing in London. So New Zealand First wishes to record in Hansard that we are expressing our deepest sympathies with the Russian people, and especially with the victims of this latest Islamic terrorist act that took place in St Petersburg.

The great Prime Minister of Israel Golda Meir once observed that ability hits the mark where presumption overshoots and indifference falls short. Boy, that sums up this Government, being one of all talk and no action. Look at what we have just heard today. Aucklanders can rejoice at light rail to the airport in 2047, when the “Minister for Overblown Announcements”, Simon “10” Bridges, will be 70. I ask the Minister responsible for Novopay, and the failed campaign manager for the Northland by-election in 2015, Steven Joyce: was not the entire Pūhoi to Wellsford motorway meant to be 2 years away from opening by now? By the way, Mr Joyce, you are seven bridges short of your pledge.

How about Minister Barry, Order of New Zealand, who might get her way for a predator-free New Zealand in 2050 if myrtle rust, which is now 1,000 kilometres off Northland, wipes out our mānuka, wipes out our kānuka, pōhutukawa, and rata simply because she and her bumbling Government have done nothing to put in place a contingency plan to deal with it. Then again, she will be 100 by then—probably talking more sense at that stage than she does currently.

What about our Minister of Police, Paula Bennett? Well, surely if ever there was a female version of Inspector Clouseau, she is the classic. Last week she pitched up at Thames with more post-dated promises, only to be countered by those who lived the reality of Labour and National—you know, the Pepsi and Coke of politics—that they are soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime. What better evidence do we have of that than Labour’s pledge to raise the age of criminal responsibility, something National vehemently opposed whilst it was in Opposition, only to see now National ramming that very same legislation through, supported by Labour—the Pepsi and Coke coalition? In fact, look for it. You heard it here first. The grand coalition is almost formed—the grand coalition of National and Labour.

But the thing that is getting us is that the thin blue line, which stretches from Thames, Whitianga, Paeroa, and Coromandel, averaged only 8.3 officers on duty over the Christmas and New Year period. It is a time when burglars, we know, had a 96 percent success rate of burgling homes, cars, and property in that very same region. Minister Bennett’s response was to say: “We’re not using official stats.” Thank you, Minister. We know exactly why you are not using them, and the truth has outed. Crime is on the increase, and indeed crime is currently out of control. If anyone needs any more proof, just go and talk to the Indian shopkeepers who caught the burglar, only to have to be forced into the Government’s catch and release policy of letting the shoplifter go because the police were not going to be there.

I have to raise one more issue. We say, from New Zealand First, sorry to Bani and Hemant Manglani, who were tourists in New Zealand on 25 March, who had their car burgled, their passports and iPhones stolen, and tried to get police for support but were told by the police that they would come only if the offender was still on the property or on the premises. So go back to our shopkeeper who had the offender in custody and the police said: “Oh, we’re too busy. We can’t come.”

This is a Government in total disarray on law and order. This is a Government with Inspector Clouseau-ess in charge of police. The country deserves better, and on 23 September it is going to get it. It will be a New Zealand First - led Government.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): We are very, very pleased to stand in support of a great National Government. And, to that previous speaker—well, dreams are free. Good on you. Keep believing it. We have seen some great progress and growth in regional New Zealand. We have seen a renaissance. After years of neglect and sunset industries around agriculture, this Government supports regional New Zealand in a very strong and deliberate way. We invest not just in terms of infrastructure but we are investing into the regions in terms of collaboration and working with not only regional officials but businesses. We are working with iwi leaders. We are working with every regional leader and chief in order to develop strategies and action plans that bring forth great growth.

For example, in Northland there are 58 projects, after a year and a half of that action plan being in place, getting some great achievements, which that member over there on the other side knows nothing about—nothing about. He goes up there for holiday weekends and that is about it. He might be up there on Good Friday but he will be gone on Saturday. He will be down to Auckland, enjoying a bit of stuff down there. He has no idea.

It is good to see that we are not only working in Northland but in Eastern Bay of Plenty—in Gisborne, in Tai Rāwhiti. We are working in Hawke’s Bay. We are working in Taranaki—a great region. Here we are—through this last year we have been knocked back by commodity prices, internationally, that we have no control over, yet we still have the highest GDP per capita in the country. Is that not amazing for a region like Taranaki? Is that not amazing? That you could get kicked in the guts by what is happening overseas and we are still fighting, we are still up, and we are still doing very, very well. It is great to see that Taranaki is a high-performing region with high technology, great workers, great imagination, and great members of Parliament.

Whanganui and Manawatū, what great regions those two regions are—and the work that is happening there, through those action plans. The West Coast of the South Island is another region that has been affected by international commodity prices, yet it has got determination. Why? Because we work with it, we partner with it, we help it, we encourage it, we believe in it, and we get behind it. Southland is another one as well.

All of these regions are seeing a renaissance. They are seeing new energy and new investment. They are seeing growth and they are seeing success come their way. We are seeing very proud New Zealanders in every one of these regions, as they work hard and determine their own success and their pathway forward.

It is great to see business leaders rise up and take hold of opportunity. We can work with them and we can help them as they challenge those, I guess, assumptions that have worked against them for so long. We can see great growth. One of the things we believe is that these regions—particularly the region that I come from, Taranaki—have gone through a time of great, I guess, difficulty with the dairy price and the oil and gas price. The oil and gas price went right down to under $30 a barrel. If you can imagine, back in 2007 and 2008 when it was $140, what a huge difference that is. It is up to $55 a barrel today. I know that in that region those oil and gas companies have made their adjustments, they have, in a sense, been able to fine-tune their operations, and they, with fresh determination, are pressing ahead to bring through that valuable commodity of oil and gas.

The policies from that side of the House will continue to destroy those regions. We know, for example, when it comes to dairying that they want to pull further costs out of, particularly, biological emissions, and that those farmers are going to struggle incredibly in that period of time. This Government is working hard. It is working hard to bring technology to bear to help farmers, and we are seeing fantastic and great gains. I would say that under this National-led Government agriculture, a great mainstay of our economy, and oil and gas, another great stay of our economy—with the application of technology and the application of smart thinking—are going to continue to prosper and see this nation succeed. Thank you.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I move that that member be given an extension of time—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, the member will resume his seat. He cannot move on behalf of another member.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tuatahi māku, ka noho ahau ki roto i Te Reo Māori. Ka tangi apakura tēnei ki tōku whaea. Kua tau te kapua pōuri ki runga i Te Whare o Te Kīngitanga, ki tōku whaea ki a Tōmairangi Paki kua ngaro atu ki Te Pō. E tangi ana tēnei ki a koe, otirā, ki a koutou. Ka tāpae atu ko te matenga o tōku tupuna a Pā Hēnare Tate, ka ngaro atu i te rua kōiwi o ngā mātua, o ngā tupuna i te rā nei. Nā, ka tāpae atu ko taku tupuna a Lou Tana i ngaro atu i te ata nei ki roto i a au ō Ngāti Hine—koutou o Te Pō, haere, haere! Ka whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero me ngā kaupapa o te wā ki tēnei Whare ō tātou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[And so my thanks to you, Mr Speaker. The first thing for me is to remain speaking in the Māori language. I mourn keenly for my auntie. The cloud of darkness has descended upon the house of the Kīngitanga; Aunt Tōmairangi Paki has gone to the void. I grieve for you and, indeed, for you collectively. I add the death to that of my ancestor Pā Hēnare Tate, who is being buried today. Lou Tana, a grandparent of mine, lost from within me, of Ngāti Hine, this morning—you collectively of the void, depart, farewell, go forth! And so I bring the focus of my contribution and relevant matters of the moment back to this House of ours; I commend you all.]

Just first of all, I wanted to pay my respects to some of the losses endured by Māoridom in the past few days. I farewell those who have departed, and now I come back to some of the losses Māoridom has suffered in the world of the living. I am actually referring to the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill, which was debated strongly last night, with a lot of passion, around particular parts. Those are parts carved out by the Māori Party.

One of those, in particular, is about Mana Whakahono ā Rohe—it was a bit of a mouthful for a few of the members to say last night. Mana Whakahono ā Rohe—trying to declare a space for Māori involvement and Māori participation in the new proposed resource management legislation. Yet, upon further inspection, after we had pulled the words apart and looked deeper into the meanings of the clauses in that particular bill, we found then that, actually, it has not done much at all. Actually what it does do, for most parts, is isolate and, in fact, exclude some tribal authorities: (1) those who do not have the resources to be able to engage with local authorities to organise Mana Whakahono ā Rohe, and also (2) other recognised tribal authorities. In that respect I am talking about urban Māori—urban Māori. They are recognised as a tribal authority.

In fact, the census data tells us that urban Māori are one of the largest tribes in New Zealand—behind Ngāpuhi, who, funnily enough, were not included in much of the debate and conversation from the Māori Party and from the National Government in the debate on the bill last night. That is a big concern (1) because I represent urban Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau, and (2) because I am of Ngāpuhi descent—the largest tribe in this country. The Māori Party has claimed to carve out these rights for Māori. First of all is Mana Whakahono ā Rohe. The second one is around GM—genetically modified crops.

The word “crops”, it is an interesting one. To advise my debate, my contribution today, I read Wai 262, a claim taken to the Waitangi Tribunal a number of years ago. Actually, the recommendations from Wai 262 have not yet been addressed by this Government. The Māori Party is carving out a space here for the exclusion of genetically modified crops, yet has not properly defined what that means. If it had only looked at Wai 262 and used the technical mātauranga Māori that you will find in Wai 262, I think it may have changed the words in that particular part.

I think about the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill and I think: what are the concessions? What are the actual concessions that the Māori Party is getting for our people? I need only look over some of the statistics to point some of those out. The Māori unemployment rate is twice the national average. A $1 billion prison, forecast by this Government, for our people. Why? Because we know Māori make up large numbers of the prison population. What else is there? Cuts to the health system, of which I am sure the Hon Annette King knows a lot more about than I do. What else have we seen? Plummeting Māori homeownership rates. These are all important factors that I think actually measure the success of Māori in today’s world—important factors that tell us whether or not we are actually succeeding. It is not just about the money that you might secure for something—it is what it means on the ground.

In closing my contribution, I am reminded of a saying my grandfather used to say. He used to say: “Ki te tara o tetahi me te poaka, ka hari te poaka ka paru koe.”

[“If you roll around with the pig, the pig will be happy and you will be dirty.”]

“Son, there are only two things that will come about by rolling around with a pig: the pig will be happy and you will end up dirty.”

Hon JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata): It is great to rise in this debate, and I am going to take my lead from the Green Party member James Shaw. That may seem a little strange here this afternoon, but, you know, that member actually talked about “great”, so I am going to talk about “great”. I am going to talk about some of the great things that are happening in our regions. Of course, I am very parochial about Canterbury. I am a Highlanders supporter, but Canterbury is great because that is where I live and it is Canterbury’s economy that is absolutely vital to New Zealand’s economy. So I do want to talk about Canterbury’s economy today.

If we take the figures to the end of March 2016—that is the GDP figures—Canterbury is right up there, with 31.9 percent growth across the period of 5 years 2011-16. That compares with New Zealand at 23.8 percent across that same period. Of course, we know that a number of things have been happening in Canterbury—some good, some bad—and people may think it is just about construction in Canterbury, in terms of that growth. But drilling down, literally, into what is creating that growth, it is actually more than that. It is professional, scientific, technical services, it is transport, it is manufacturing, and it is definitely agriculture but it is also postal services. That was one that interested me, because that was perhaps not something that would have jumped on to my radar.

In Canterbury we also know that if we look at the ANZ research job ads, across that period of time—the last 18 months—the number of job ads in Canterbury has oscillated at around the 5,500 mark and it was a little more at the beginning of that period. That tells you that things are pretty hot in Canterbury. That particular GDP growth is, of course, around growth, and as long as the region continues to grow like that, we know it will continue to be very much a big part of the engine room of the economy.

But there is more great news. You know, New Zealanders are pretty interested in knowing that more houses are being built. We know that across the country the annual consents have doubled and they have almost tripled in Auckland, and that should provide some reassurance to New Zealanders.

As well as that, we are actually back in surplus. I can tell you that for New Zealanders reflecting back on the last few years since the global financial crisis, that has been a tough ask, but this National-led Government has delivered on that, with a surplus of $1.8 billion last year. What that means is that we can start to pay down debt, which is really, really important, and then, after getting debt to around 20 percent of GDP, we will be returning an amount to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund as well—starting up the contributions again.

To finish, I want to talk in specific terms about one great news story close to home for me. This is quite topical this week, really—it is about pizza, but it is about the mozzarella cheese that goes on pizza. I want to talk about technology that was developed by the Fonterra Research and Development Centre. It is supported by the Transforming the Dairy Value Chain, which is a Primary Growth Partnership. Of course, Primary Growth Partnership—that is the Ministry for Primary Industries, it is Fonterra, and it is Dairy New Zealand. What this technology does—and it is a tightly kept secret, of course—is it actually produces mozzarella. It is called individually quick-frozen mozzarella, and it used to take 3 months. Now it happens in 6 hours, and that is why we have some great contracts with the rest of the world to supply that stretchy cheese to them.

In fact, that will contribute to what Fonterra is heading towards by 2023. Food service—that is, mozzarella cheese being part of it—is a $5 billion part of that particular sector. But it is more, when I think about what is happening locally. This actually means 1,000 people are in jobs, building the $240 million - plus mozzarella plant at Clandeboye. It is already a big plant, but this will be the largest mozzarella plant in the Southern Hemisphere.

In addition to that, we are talking about 133 new jobs. Some of those jobs are really technical; some of them are entry-level. Some of them will be people coming out of the polytech system and some of them will be young people coming out of schools, and Fonterra is actively recruiting from around the country as well. That means a huge boost for our part of the region. This is why we as a Government are able to say there are some great things happening. There is more to do, but some really great things are happening in my region.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to make a contribution in this general debate, and I want to follow on from my whanaunga Peeni Henare, because there is news just in. I understand the Māori Party is renaming itself. It is going to be rebranded as the “Māori Elite Party”. Yes, those members are going to be the members for the new Māori bourgeoisie. To be a member of the “Māori Elite Party”, you have to earn a minimum of $100,000, you have to be an iwi leader, it does require Koru Club membership, and you have to be ready to be appointed to Minister Flavell’s special appointment committees to be able to enjoy the benefits of that bourgeoisie class.

So that is what the Māori Party members are. They are the “Māori Elite Party”. They do not stand for ordinary, hard-working battlers of the Māori whānau whānui out there. I am talking about the whānau in Kawerau, the whānau in Murupara, the whānau in Ōhai, which is a lovely little place in the electorate of Mr—over there. We know where it is—down in Southland, Murihiku. Todd—Todd Barclay. That is it.

Those members are so far disconnected from the real, hard-working, aspirational Māori whānau out there. It is a real travesty that they have, for the past 8 years now, been propping up this National Government. What have they achieved under this Government for Māori in those 8 years? Well, as Peeni touched on, it is lower incomes. It is shocking that the gap in the weekly earnings between Māori and Pākehā since 2008 has grown by 47 percent.

Sue Moroney: What?

RINO TIRIKATENE: 47 percent. Remember that number. That is a huge gap, just in the space of time of this Government. We know that more Māori are out of work. We know that more Māori are locked up in prisons. We know that the life expectancy of Māori is a lot lower than for the general population. All of those measures have not improved. They have gotten worse under this Government, propped up by the “Māori Elite Party”.

What better example of pandering to the bourgeoisie, this new, elite class of Māori, is there than what the Māori Party has achieved with this Resource Management Act (RMA) amendment. Can I give an example. We have been debating the new Mana Whakahono ā Rohe, as referred to by Peeni, and if you actually really break it down, it is nothing new. There were always iwi participation agreements in the RMA. There is an abundance of these participation agreements entered into right around the country, so what have those members done with this elaborate Mana Whakahono ā Rohe? They have not really added much at all, but, boy, have they ever created such a wordy process around how iwi have to invite local authorities to “Come and join us in our mana whakahono.”, and then it is up to the local authorities to decide: “Do we want to hold a hui or a meeting to discuss this mana whakahono?”.

It is so overly prescriptive. I mean, is this what the technical advisers of the iwi leaders have come up with: a hugely prescriptive process that really achieves absolutely nothing. Look, if you are talking about huis and meetings, it fails to address the real issue—which we do support—about increasing Māori input and participation in the resource management processes.

But I do want to get back to the point, because while the “Māori Elite Party” is focusing on whether a local authority is going to hold a hui or a meeting to discuss its entry into a mana whakahono, we here on this side are focused on the real issues. The issues around jobs, the issues around incomes, the issues around housing and the plummeting housing ownership for Māori, the issues around the well-being of our whānau and the health of our tamariki, the issues around the huge increase in Child, Youth and Family care of our tamariki—those are the issues. Those are the big things that we are focusing on. Unfortunately, to its detriment, the “Māori Elite Party” has been propping up National for too long, and I am sure that it is going to be toast.

TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): It is a pleasure to pick up on a point just raised by the previous speaker, Rino Tirikatene, about battlers. I thought it was a bit rich for the Opposition to be talking about the Māori Party not supporting battlers in the Māori community when the real battlers are sitting right over there, on the other side of the House.

I want to acknowledge the Māori Party, and Te Ururoa Flavell in particular for the work that he does in his economic development roles right across the country, actually—even right down in Southland, in the role that he has played as part of the Southland Regional Development Strategy, alongside the Minister for Economic Development, Simon Bridges, and the former Minister for Economic Development, Steven Joyce. I think we have hit rock bottom when the Opposition members spend their whole time shuffling around talking about the criticisms they have of the Māori Party and other support parties of the Government and offer no solutions themselves about what they would do. On this side of the House, we are talking about the positive growth attributes of each of our regions, as a direct and indirect result of Government assistance. But not just monetary handouts, which the Labour Party seems to think are the answer to these issues facing aspects of regional New Zealand; it is actually what the Government is doing to help communities help themselves.

One particular initiative that I want to spend a bit of time talking about today is the Southland Regional Development Strategy, which was one of the major regional growth plans that was announced by Steven Joyce at the end of last year—and Te Ururoa Flavell and Nathan Guy. What they were talking about was actually the contribution that the region of Southland has done itself to try to look at what we do well, what we could do better, what our opportunities into the future are to diversify our economy, and what role the Government can play. So, quite uniquely, a bunch of about 90 Southland business people got together and developed nine streams of priorities for what Southland’s growth priorities should look like over the next decade.

The overarching goal is to grow our population by 10,000, and to diversify and strengthen our already existing regional development initiatives. What the Government did was come along and say: “This is fantastic. You guys are doing a really good job. How can we help? Is there anything we can do to assist you?”. The business people of Southland said: “Yep, that would be fantastic. We’ve got a couple of key areas where we can’t do it ourselves and we need Government assistance.” The first is around aquaculture. So the Government has put in about $900,000 over the next couple of years to assist with the research and development of the aquaculture prospects in the southern part of the South Island, and that is absolutely fantastic. Sarah Dowie, the MP for Invercargill, has played a strong role in advocating for that and she is doing a fine role in continuing to drive that project as well.

The second is how we can strengthen our growing tourism industry. What the Government has done there is put in about $500,000—$250,000 of which has gone into supporting the Milford Opportunities Project, which is a project that I established, alongside the Southland District Council and the Department of Conservation, to look at how we can make tourism growth into Milford Sound more sustainable. Last year there were 600,000 visitors into Milford Sound, 95 buses a day on average, not to mention the hundreds if not thousands of free and independent travellers going in and out of Milford, to visit the picturesque scenery there. How can we keep that picturesque scenery the way it is for future generations to come and future generations of visitors? So there is a lot of work going on to preserve that and to manage the sustainable growth into Milford Sound.

The third area—and I want to acknowledge Penny Simmonds, who is the chief executive officer of the Southern Institute of Technology—is how we can continue to grow our international education. Southern Institute of Technology is quite unique in the respect that the average age of its students is much older than many of our other international student providers across the country: usually in their late 20s or early 30s. The unique characteristic is that they do not just come themselves to stay; they usually bring a partner, who has opportunities of employment in the district, and also children, who are supporting the roll growth in our schools.

So a couple of those attributes that the Government has decided to focus on, in supporting Southland to grow and develop, as part of its growth study, are going to pay off and are going to have strong dividends. It is down to the vision and the tenacity and the perseverance of a large number of Southland business people and the support of this Government. So thank you very much.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Imagine if this Chamber was on fire. Would we sit around and debate what to do? Would we argue and vote on whether it was important or whether it was happening at all? What would we do if petrol was being poured on it, making it worse? I ask these questions because they relate to a little story I want to tell.

On 28 August 1859 George Bissell and Edwin Drake took a gamble. It was a gamble that would pay off financially for them and for many others, but who would have guessed it at the time that it could risk the survival of our species? These two men were looking for an alternative to whale oil. Facing financial problems, experimental technology, and even fire, they eventually managed to build the world’s first oil rig. On that day the oil age began and it changed the world. It quite literally changed the world. There was so much oil that it is even changing our atmosphere. One hundred and fifty years on, scientists say we cannot afford to burn 70 to 90 percent of all the oil we have discovered if we want to avoid a runaway catastrophe.

The science is clear, but for polluters it is an inconvenient truth. These polluters have persuaded politicians to spend public money for private profit. You can see it in Trump’s America and you can see it in National’s New Zealand. It is like a fire in a crowded cinema and, instead of yelling out “Fire!”, someone locks the door and disputes whether there is a fire at all, or what should be done about it. That would be murder and what some politicians are doing is being accomplices to planetary homicide. In this House we have 121 seats. That is twice as many politicians as Māui’s dolphins, yet National is opening up the Māui’s dolphin sanctuary for the last 63 for oil drilling. These 63 are battling extinction, threatened by fishing nets. They do not need any more risks. It is just one example of how National is the pro-pollution party.

You just have to look at the facts. They gift the oil industry $46 million a year in tax breaks and subsidies. They will give them another $800 million to help them decommission their oil rigs. They spent $240,000 wining and dining 11—11—oil executives for a couple of days. This year they announced an oil block the size of the land of the country of Papua New Guinea. They have opened up a full third of the Māui’s dolphin sanctuary and turned it into an oil block and allowed oil drilling to the shores of Lake Te Ānau. For what? We have seen a succession of oil companies leave New Zealand, and those who choose to stay pay the fourth-lowest tax plus royalty rates in the world. National has given up on the last of the Māui’s dolphins and they are supporting the last industry we should be supporting. It is like investing in tobacco farms or nuclear weapons factories.

History will be the judge, but the Greens know which side we stand on. We will stop deep-sea oil drilling and we will focus on clean energy. The Stone Age did not end for want of stones. It ended because we had something better, and the oil age will end for the same reason. The good news in New Zealand is that we have a wealth of clean energy and the energy of hundreds of thousands of caring Kiwis to change it. There is a growing movement across this country to stop those who would fan the flames of climate change. Right this very second, brave New Zealanders are out on the sea off the coast of the North Island aboard the Taitu and the waka Te Matau-ā-Māui to oppose the beast—a massive seismic survey vessel. Last month Kiwis risked arrest at the petroleum conference. Last year we saw our Churches, our councils, and our universities vote with their feet and their wallets to say no to oil.

We do not need Bissell and Drake’s oil rigs any more. We are seeing a movement. This is our generation’s nuclear-free moment. We have got a wealth of clean energy. No other nation is so well endowed with so many resources. It is crazy—we have got such a head start into the 21st century but National is trying to drag us back. We could be the country with wind turbines in our hills, and quiet, cheap electric vehicles. We could be the place, like nuclear-free New Zealand again, the world looks to for inspiration. But some want to stay in the past for profit and some want to stay in the past for lack of vision. We cannot let them win.

I have got a petition calling on the Government to stop its support for the exploration of oil drilling. If you want to support our fragile atmosphere, if you care about our last Māui’s dolphins, and if you want to protect Lake Te Ānau and our environment, sign your signature and add your name to the right side of history. Kia ora.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Well, I will not go into any of that, but I do want to start by—I was going to say “Welcome to the rainy Rangitīkei.”, because we must be very quickly becoming the wettest electorate in New Zealand. We do have the most sheep, but we are now becoming the wettest. Just before I do get on to what I really want to talk about, I think it is worth mentioning the fact that whilst the Rangitīkei and Whanganui districts have declared states of emergency, I have spoken to my local mayor recently and things are not as bad as the emergency initially looked. But, none the less, there is flooding right throughout New Zealand—or right through the North Island—which is quite unusual when you think of the history of our floods and emergency situations. They do not often spread right across the North Island.

Tim Macindoe: We are quite a pluvial nation.

IAN McKELVIE: We are—exactly, Tim—quite a pluvial nation. Things are not as bad as they may have been in Rangitīkei; none the less, for some farmers it will be challenging.

Rangitīkei is the heart of the Horizons Regional Council, and the Horizons Regional Council, on the current statistics, is running at about No. 6 in New Zealand for growth. We had GDP growth of over 3 percent, and, interestingly, that GDP growth is not related to agriculture; it is related to a much broader sector than that. I think that is one of the really encouraging things about rural New Zealand in recent years—that we have diversified our economy significantly, as have many other parts of New Zealand. Whilst agriculture is a hugely important part of that economy, it is not the critical part of it that it perhaps was, earlier in our history.

In the Manawatū-Whanganui area—or the Horizons region, of course, as Minister Bridges alluded to earlier—we have a new economic development strategy, and we have got an action plan to boost the regional economy. Interestingly, one of those plans in the Manawatū-Whanganui area, particularly the Whanganui area, involves the very strong input of our Māori community. Listening to the discussion yesterday during the course of the Resource Management Act reforms, I thought it was extremely disturbing that, as a nation, we have not grown beyond the sort of petty behaviour that was going on in the Chamber yesterday. I think that Rangitīkei particularly, and many other parts of New Zealand, will benefit hugely not only from the changes to the Resource Management Act but from the input of our Māori community and the benefits that the Treaty settlement process is bringing to them. It is hugely important, particularly for the Whanganui-Ruapehu part of my electorate, and quite exciting for the future.

I also want to briefly mention the Ruapehu district, which is heavily invested in tourism and is, in fact, the home of the Tongariro Alpine Crossing, two national parks, and numerous cycleways and walkways. The Tongariro Alpine Crossing, of course—some 125,000 people walk that every year. It has probably reached saturation point, I would have thought, and there are clearly some infrastructural challenges around that sort of thing, so we need to move on that very quickly. The Government is certainly helping those regions that are heavily tourist-bound, I guess, to make such a big difference. So that is very encouraging.

Hon Maggie Barry: We’re hearing you, Ian. We’re listening.

IAN McKELVIE: Just while the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage is talking—of course, the Tangiwai Memorial, which has its anniversary in about a week or two’s time, is being upgraded currently. Of course, for those people who do not realise, Tangiwai—right in the centre of my electorate—was the biggest disaster in New Zealand history at the time, and is still one of the most significant disasters in New Zealand’s history. Of course, the Whangaehu River, which the Tangiwai bridge crossed—and still does cross, or a new one does—is one of those rivers that is creating a fair bit of grief at the moment, in the lower reaches.

I think our regional development strategy is doing extremely well. It is doing a great job in my electorate. One of the other really strong parts of the Rangitīkei electorate—and the New Zealand economy, of course—is the activity of our defence forces. In fact, I have Waiōuru—well, I do not; the Rangitīkei electorate has the Waiōuru, Ōhākea, and Linton camps, all in that area. The potential for the Singaporean agreement to come off is huge for my part of the world, and it would be very exciting if there was ever agreement reached with them over Ōhākea. I think that is very exciting for us as well.

So we are growing in almost every sector, particularly in the defence sector. The education sector is very strong in the electorate, of course—and I have Massey University there. We have the construction sector, with housing going well. All in all, it is a pretty good performance. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Resource Legislation Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 4 April.

Part 2 Amendments to Reserves Act 1977

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Thank you, Mr Chair—excuse my tentative standing there; I shall aim to improve. I would be very happy to take a call on Part—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member can improve a lot.

MICHAEL WOOD: Ha, ha! I remember the wise words of former Assistant Speaker Ross Robertson, who said: “Courtesy is contagious.”

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member can live in hope.

MICHAEL WOOD: Ha, ha! I am always hopeful, and, of course, I am hopeful about this bill and the capacity of this Committee to look at improvements to it in this Committee stage, as well. It is in that vein that I rise to speak about Part 2, which refers to a number of changes to the Reserves Act. Of course, we sort of had the main act yesterday in terms of the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill. A lot of the significant changes that have attracted a great deal of public attention were in the earlier part, but it is nonetheless important that we also give scrutiny to the subsequent parts.

I personally feel very strongly about this part. I have got a background in local government over the past 6 years, and one of the things that I have learnt in that time is the importance and the preciousness of our parks and our open spaces; the reserves, which make our cities and towns good places to live, to experience recreation, and to provide protection to important ecological areas and wildlife. The fact is that we often have those reserves because of the legislative protections that we have in the Reserves Act. I have just got the purpose here of the Reserves Act, which I think is useful to reflect upon when we are looking at these possible changes here. Section 3(a) of that Act describes the purpose as “providing for the preservation and management for the benefit and enjoyment of the public, areas of New Zealand possessing—(i) recreational use or potential, … (ii) wildlife; or (iii) indigenous flora or fauna; or (iv) environmental and landscape amenity … or (v) natural, scenic, historic, cultural, archaeological, biological, geological, scientific, educational, community, or other special features or value:”.

So we turn to the bill under consideration and what it actually does in this area. Effectively, what it does is give the option of considering and consulting upon Reserves Act exchanges alongside plan changes. That is, effectively, what we are talking about here, and this does deserve some scrutiny. There are a number of submissions that point to some of the potential issues that come to the fore when we bring those two things together. Essentially, the problem—and the issue and the reason why the Labour Party has a problem in this area—is that if we go back to that purpose of the Reserves Act that I talked about, and then we look at the underlying objectives of this bill, which are, effectively, to encourage and support development, those objectives do not necessarily line up well.

Under the Reserves Act that we have, and the body of jurisprudence that has built up under it, there is always a fundamental and strong protection and interest in the reserve itself, always making Reserves Act decisions, especially in relation to exchanges under the Reserves Act, with the benefit of the reserve at the very centre. So the question is that if under this amendment bill—and we are talking here about the changes in new section 14A of the Reserves Act, inserted by clause 163—we potentially confuse and dilute the two purposes there, because if you are running the two processes together, that is, questions about whether it is appropriate to exchange reserve land and plan changes, which are almost inevitably about developing upon the subsequent land that has come about as a result of the exchange, how do you preserve the primacy of the interests of the reserve when you are running those two processes together?

If you look at the current process, we first go through a Reserves Act exchange process, and that gives us the opportunity to say: “Is this exchange of reserve land appropriate? Is it in the interests of the reserve land and the community that it serves?”. Now, the answer may very well be yes, it is, and in that case you can potentially then move onto the plan change process and look at development on that land. But I can only think that putting those two processes together puts additional pressure on the decision makers to think about the potential development, when, actually, what we should be focusing on in the first place is the land that we are considering under the Reserves Act.

So I have got real concerns here, and these concerns are reflected in some of the commentary around the bill and in some of the submissions. I refer—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I go to Mr O’Rourke, I am going to remind the Committee that we are talking to Part 2, and we are talking to what is actually in Part 2 now, not what might have been in it earlier. We are talking to Part 2 as amended, and any amendments to it, but there are not any yet. It is a very narrow area and does not actually even include the section that the member is referring to, which was changed at the select committee.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Could I just clarify what you have just said? I understand that what we have before us, in the report from the Local Government and Environment Committee, relating to Part 2, includes a new section 15AA in clause 164.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes, we have talked about that—that is fine.

DENIS O’ROURKE: OK; that is what I want to speak to. I think it is important that we do address that in this debate, because if the other provisions of this bill are bad enough, and New Zealand First says they could not be much worse, then in fact clause 164, which would insert new section 15AA, is, in our opinion, if possible, worse still. We think it attacks the integrity of the Reserves Act and creates a process by which private interests can prevail over public interests in terms of reserve land. It puts in place a process that makes that not just possible but a process that makes it almost inevitable, subject to certain conditions, which we think are too easily met.

The reason I say that is this: if you look at the section itself, the new section 15AA, you will see, as the previous speaker, Michael Wood, said, that it is tied to a process either for a resource consent or for a change to a district or regional plan. Therefore, this idea of being able to exchange land gets tied up with that process, and that process has to go forward. That is why I say it is almost inevitable, subject to some conditions, and that is what I want to question the Minister in the chair, Nick Smith, about, really.

When you look at the net-benefit provision in new subsection (5)(b) you struggle to understand, if you are reading it fairly, what that really would mean in terms of limitation. That is really the only effective limitation to this happening. There has to be a net benefit. The net benefit, which is difficult in itself to understand—how on earth can you quantify what is a benefit over one reserve in respect of what could be another reserve for an exchange land? How is it possible to actually quantify that, in terms of what would be a net benefit? In other words, you get more out of the new piece of land than you would out of the reserve that is going to be extinguished.

To make that worse, if you look at the word “community”, it has to be a net benefit “for the community that uses, benefits from, or enjoys the reserve.” What is the community, for these purposes? Does it mean the area immediately around the reserve? Does it mean the whole locality? Does it mean the entire city or town? Does it mean the region? What does it mean?

What I am pointing out to the Minister is that this is a very loosely worded subsection. This is the only saviour that the people who wish to keep such a reserve could point to, and yet they are going to have a hard job because of how loosely this section is drafted. It refers to community, it refers to net benefit, and so on. It is very difficult to establish. So that is why I say that once this process gets going, it is almost inevitable that we will lose reserves all over the country, where in fact there actually is not going to be any genuine benefit. The real thrust of this is typical National Government attitudes, that these public interests are second-class to the private interests that will be driving this.

That is what this whole provision is really all about. That is why New Zealand First will never vote for a provision such as this. It is the kind of thing that the Government is already putting forward, like the Point England development for example. The same sort of thing would happen under this provision as is happening there. This is a poor piece of legislation. It is not going to assist greatly in solving the housing crisis, but it will compromise the Reserves Act and the ability of communities and people to preserve their recreation reserves in the places that they are now. That is why this is so objectionable. It makes it so difficult for communities to resist this, because of this awful, loose, and shoddy piece of legislation, which should certainly not be allowed to pass.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call any member, I just want to place on the record my apology to Michael Wood. I misread the section and did not see the consequential amendment to which he was referring, and I inappropriately criticised him. I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): This bill and part are quite specific around the Reserves Act. They provide for less bureaucracy. That is what this reform is about. I put it to the members from Labour and New Zealand First: how can you have a separate conversation, one conversation, about the changes to a reserve, which are permitted under the law right now, and have a separate process somewhere else for the resource consent and the planning changes that would enable better utilisation of our reserves and amenities?

I acknowledge the member who spoke earlier, who is vigorously opposed to the 1,500 homes development at Three Kings. It is a development that would result in more homes—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member will resume his seat. I probably over-cautioned the member previously, as to sticking to the clauses in the bill. I think it is important, if the member is going to make that sort of a comment, that he very narrowly relates it to that, because otherwise what he does is he opens it up to all other members to take general cases, which might not be as closely related. It makes it very hard to chair.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am happy to take that guidance, although a practical example is a good way for us to work through the Government’s objectives around these changes. In an example like Three Kings—but we could use many others—you have one set of process and submissions on the Reserves Act changes, and a separate set of decisions and process around the planning changes and in respect of the resource consent. All this provision does is say that if you are going to do those things, let us have one process. Why is it that members opposite are so into bureaucracy and multiple processes, rather than actually having good integrated systems?

The last point I really want to draw attention to is in respect of the very important subsection (5) of new section 15AA, inserted by clause 164, which is the administering body, the council—the elected council—in the area can only grant the application if it considers that the exchange would result in a net benefit for recreational opportunities for the community.

Denis O’Rourke: Meaning what? How is that quantified?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, look, I just listened to the interjections from the member for New Zealand First, who continuously lectures us on trusting councils. The administering bodies are councils. These are elected bodies of people’s communities and they should be able to make good, smart decisions about the utilisation of those reserves, the way they interact with the plans, and the way in which they interact with resource consents. I simply say that the debate on this part reinforces that we are a party about less bureaucracy, about being flexible and nimble, so that we can address issues like housing. Typically, Labour and New Zealand First members constantly complain about not enough houses being built, about not enabling our communities to redevelop, but then block every practical measure that would get more homes built more quickly.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. This is another Nick Smith special. It is all about snaffling public land, public reserves, for more housing. When we have got intensive urban development, residential development, in our cities and towns, and particularly in Auckland, those areas of green space become absolutely critical for providing respite, for getting back to nature, for allowing people to relax, for providing oases of green in the city to help—

Hon Maggie Barry: That’s what gardens are for.

EUGENIE SAGE: —reduce heat pollution in summer, for providing trees—and I hear the Minister of Conservation attacking the protection of trees. It was this Government, of course, that changed the Resource Management Act (RMA) to allow private property owners to cut down a lot more trees—that stripped out the urban tree protection provisions in the RMA and substantially weakened it here.

The Green Party believes in good urban parks and reserves to provide a network of places where people can enjoy nature and where nature can thrive, because accessible and pleasant public reserves contribute to people’s well-being and sense of amenity. These places have got to be people friendly and they have got to protect natural values, but what this part of the bill is doing, in conjunction with Part 1, which made residential development and subdivision and unplanned subdivision much easier, is introducing a new process where, instead of going through the usual processes under the Reserves Act around land exchange, where the Minister of Conservation is the final decision maker, it bundles it up with the resource consent process.

Hon Maggie Barry: Not true.

EUGENIE SAGE: It does. The Minister obviously has not read the bill.

This part of the bill ensures, as Denis O’Rourke has pointed out, that the applicant only has to claim that there is a net benefit for recreation, and that could be putting in a new walking track or a new cycle track, and the applicant for development in the reserve—for using the reserve for housing, as the Minister wants to happen in the Point England Reserve—is able to say there is a net benefit to the community because a few more people will be able to walk there.

What this part of the bill fails to recognise is that once an area of public reserve has been sacrificed for housing and building development, the opportunities for future generations to use that reserve are gone. The opportunity for green space is gone for present generations. It is much less accessible. So this is sacrificing intrinsic values and opportunities for future generations to determine how public land should be used, just so we can have short-term housing development.

We should be able to plan our housing development in our cities and towns so that it is more intense, so that it is situated around public transport corridors with good planning, but this bill, in toto, is not—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! [Interruption] Order! I am now going to—interjections were sort of going pretty heavily for a while, but when it starts crossing in front, from New Zealand First to National, of the member who is trying to speak, it makes it almost impossible for us to hear, and I am sure it does not assist the member. I mean, one set of interjections you can handle, but having two happening at once from different sides is quite hard.

EUGENIE SAGE: Thank you, Mr Chair. So we want good, well-planned cities, but those cities do not occur—

Hon Anne Tolley: With no houses—with no houses. They’d rather have cows grazing than houses.

EUGENIE SAGE: —without the sacrifice of public lands and reserves in the short term for housing. Minister Tolley is claiming that the Point England Reserve does not have any value because it has cows grazing on it and has open space. If the Minister had listened to the submissions at the Local Government and Environment Committee, she would have heard that a lot of people value the land because of that—because it allows access to a farm experience in the city.

Anyway, getting back to this bill, it cuts right across using reserves for public recreation and amenity, and introduces a short-cut process for enabling them to be subdivided and thieved from the public to use for housing. So that is another one of the reasons that the Green Party is opposing the bill.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Can I start off by thanking you, Mr Chairperson, for your earlier comments, and also by thanking the Minister in the chair, Nick Smith, for his contribution and for proving the precise point that members on this side of the House have been trying to raise in this debate, which is that if we go down this track, then we will muddy the waters. We will not provide the protections that we currently have under the Reserves Act for our reserves. In the Minister’s comments, when he stood to take a call, that is exactly what he said. He criticised anyone who was standing up for the retention of the reserves in our towns and cities and said that was getting in the way of development.

The current protections we have under the Reserves Act when it comes to consideration of the exchange of reserves are very simple. It says that you consider the benefit to the reserve and the community that is served by that reserve. As soon as we start running that process together with plan changes that are almost inevitably centred around urban development—which, of course, is good, and we should be finding the space to do that—you muddy the waters, and the protection of those reserves will be watered down. But you do not have to believe me, believe another man called Michael Wood, who is one of New Zealand’s most eminent Resource Management Act lawyers from Simpson Grierson, who, in his commentary on this bill, is very, very clear.

He says: “The amendments are intended to facilitate improved urban redevelopment by enabling integrated consultation … Arguably the proposed new section 14B may have the effect of opening the door for more applications to exchange other land for existing recreation reserves,”. So he is making it very, very clear that the likely effect of these changes is for more and more of the parks and reserves in our towns and cities to be eyed up for development. And that is where this side of the Chamber has a real concern.

There are also some questions I would like to ask the Minister around this, and I guess the first thing is, really, to ask him about what the real driver for this is. If he is putting forward the argument that this is about developing more houses, does he really believe that these changes are likely to result in more development on our parks and reserves? Otherwise, what are we talking about here? What is the value of it? What analysis has been done to think about what changes we might see in the number of reserves exchange proposals coming forward under these proposals?

I want to pick up on a point, also, that was raised by Denis O’Rourke in his comments, and that is the net-benefit test. This is very, very important. It is at the core of the jurisprudence and the wording in the current Act and the bill when we consider whether an exchange under the Reserves Act should go ahead. The wording we have got—and it pretty much does transfer straight over from the original Act through into the amendments—is that we have to consider the “net benefit for recreation opportunities”.

This has always struck me as a little bit strange, and I wonder why it was not picked up at the Local Government and Environment Committee and whether it should be looked at, because, under the Reserves Act, we do not just classify our reserves by their recreational benefit. We classify our reserves as historic, recreational, scenic, or having natural benefits. But the wording in terms of the net-benefit test only seems to recognise the recreational benefits. I am not suggesting that that is a pernicious change put forward by the Minister or the Government, because that wording does just transfer over from the previous Act, but, none the less, it does seem to me to be a significant oversight that should be looked at. A whole range of the reserves that we have do not just have recreation benefits. If you are in Auckland, you look at the Hunua ranges or the Waitakere Ranges. Actually, the primary benefit of those reserves relates to their scenic and their ecological and sometimes historic values as well. So that is something that I think should be considered.

One of the other aspects—and the Minister may like to address this really—going to the core objection that has been raised on this side of the Chamber is the question of, if we are running these two processes together, how it is that we have some assurance that the people who will be hearing both the reserve exchange proposal and the plan change proposal will be able to separate out the different imperatives under both of those processes.

Firstly, let us remember that imperative under the Reserves Act to provide for the preservation and management for the benefit and enjoyment of the public of the reserve, and, secondly, the imperatives that will flow through from the amended Resource Management Act, which, essentially, are about supporting increased development. How is it, and what level of assurance do we have, that we can actually balance those two, and what work has the Minister and his officials done to ensure that we do achieve that balance if we are going to run these two processes together?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I am happy to answer a few of those questions very quickly. The member Michael Wood raises the concern that the test for any change in reserve relates to its recreational purpose. The member asks: “Well, what about scenic reserves? What about ecological reserves?”. The member misses that this provision covers only recreational reserves. The ecological reserves, the scientific reserves, and the nature reserves—all of those reserves—are unaffected by this provision; it is only recreational reserves. So it is entirely appropriate that the legal test is whether the recreation is enhanced or not.

The second point the member raises is whether this is just about the increasing development of housing on reserves. Not at all. It is about enhancing the amenity of our reserves. The member seems to be stuck in the mode of thinking that just because a set of reserves was provided for a community 100 years ago, that configuration of the reserves is going to provide the maximum amount of amenity today. I could take that member to hundreds of recreational reserves around New Zealand that have negligible use that could be configured far more sensibly to enhance their community. This provision will allow that to occur in a place like Three Kings, where actually the local sports club is very strongly supportive of the changes because the recreational amenity will be improved.

The third test I give to members opposite, who regularly lecture our Government on trusting local government, is to ask why it is that the administering body that is referred to in this part rests with the council. Fundamentally, it comes down to what occurs when councils come to make decisions about changes in reserves, and, when they have to meet that test, whether there will be a net improvement in amenity. I fundamentally trust that councils will make good calls that will see more vibrant communities, better recreational facilities, and also, where it makes sense, opportunities for more intensive development, because that is a critical part of the solution we have in providing the vibrancy and the housing for cities like Auckland.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I want to speak further about Part 2 and, in particular, clauses 162 to 165—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I hope so, seeing they are the only clauses in it.

PHIL TWYFORD: —the question of providing joint resource consent in recreation reserve exchange processes. I want to really reinforce the concerns that have been raised by my colleagues about the proposals and, in fact, the reservations that were expressed by submitters at the select committee on this. It did occur to me, listening to the debate and listening to the Minister, that even this provision is better than some of the behaviour that we have seen recently from this Government, because by providing an optional alternate process for consideration of, basically, changing the status of parks under the Reserves Act in the Resource Management Act (RMA), at least it provides some due process. I want to compare that and contrast it with the legislation that this Minister has brought to the House. I am talking about the Point England Development Enabling Bill, which, essentially, confiscates public parkland by legislative fiat. It cuts across the Reserves Act and the RMA to take away—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am looking forward to the debate on the Point England bill and welcome it, but today we are debating the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill, Part 2. That has no relevance to the separate Point England bill. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! No, I want to rule on this. Anticipating a debate is something that has quite a lot of Speakers’ rulings around it. My understanding is that the Point England bill is not so close to being heard by the House that a debate on it is ruled out because it is anticipated. The point that I am going to make to Mr Twyford is that passing reference would be OK, but he has now, I think, got beyond that. If there is anything left to be said that is new on this part, he should get to it. [Interruption] I call Dr—sorry, the Hon David Parker.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): If only. The sort of doctor that makes you sick!

Hon Maggie Barry: You’re right there.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Oh, what a lovely contribution from the old rough red on the other side! I hope we capture that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! You might just want to withdraw that.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I withdraw that, Mr Chairperson. I want to raise an actual example that was given to me by someone concerned about these Reserves Act changes. It builds on the points that have been made by my colleague and also by Denis O’Rourke and Eugenie Sage. It relates to the loss of open space. Some of these recreational reserves are open space. Fewer of them will be in the future. That is the effect of this provision because on more occasions than occur now, there will be a joint application under the Resource Management Act (RMA) and the Reserves Act to change what happens on those recreational reserves from being open space to having some commercial character.

The example that was given to me is in respect of the very limited open spaces that we have on the North Shore in Auckland—very, very short of open space in that area. There is pressure in respect of some of those open spaces to build boating clubs that have a commercial aspect to them: they will have a liquor licence sometimes, they might have a restaurant, and there might be some exchange involved somewhere else.

Denis O’Rourke: Car-parks.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, car-parks. Thank you, Mr O’Rourke. There will be a change that will be advocated by those people who are in favour of it, who will be alleging that there is a net benefit from the recreational opportunities that occur as a consequence of that. I think that is the contention that has been made by this person to me, who is an experienced lawyer with experience relating to the Reserves Act, saying that in his opinion that is what will be the result of this legislation.

Dealing with the Minister’s point about complexity and not trusting councils, actually, I do trust councils so this is not a distrust of council thing. But I want to deal with your point about bureaucracy. If members of the community who are opposed to the changing nature of the recreational opportunities on their local reserve have to deal with the RMA aspects of the car-parks, the liquor licensing, and the building, you can bet that the people who are pursuing that are going to be lawyered up themselves to deal with the complexity of what they are proposing.

Already this joint process is more complex than the two separate processes used to be. The Minister shakes his head but, logically, that is true. I am not saying that the RMA process is more complex than the existing RMA process; that is not what I am saying. I am saying that the addition of that to the Reserves Act process in the single process makes that single process more complex than the earlier separate Reserves Act process was for members of the public. So members of the public who might have been interested in keeping this as an open reserve without buildings on it—they wanted it as open space, a place to relax, an oasis of green, as Eugenie Sage said—will be required to deal with the Resource Management Act process at the same time. Overall, it will be a more complex process and it is likely that instead of a group of interested individuals appearing before councillors, instead we are going to have this more complex process in which some of the parties that are proposing this change, which is almost quasi-commercial sometimes, are going to have lawyers on their side and members of the public will feel more threatened, if you like, and less able to participate unless they have the resources to play that same game.

For those reasons, I support the comments from my colleague Denis O’Rourke and Eugenie Sage that, contrary to what the Minister is saying, you are actually going to have a more complex process and a more bureaucratic process compared with the existing process, which is limited to the Reserves Act considerations separately from the Resource Management Act processes for what is being proposed.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I think that if the member had been a call earlier, he might have got it, but that was completely relevant.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I want to respond to a couple of things in relation to what Minister Smith has said in his recent comments. The first one is that he says to us: “Trust the councils. Look at what is in the bill, especially in relation to the net-benefit clause, and trust them.” Well, I do not trust them. I will say that here and now, and I say that with the benefit of having been a city councillor for 15 years. I do not trust them to be able to properly administer a piece of legislation like this. There are two reasons for that. One is that I think they too often make mistakes—quite simply, that. They make mistakes far too often. I could give you a dozen examples if you want me to, but I am sure everybody in this room knows that they actually do make mistakes.

Chris Bishop: No, they don’t.

DENIS O’ROURKE: They do, in fact. The Government does, as well, and I could talk about Redcliffs School and how the Government is going to take a park, but I am not going to, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am pleased.

DENIS O’ROURKE: I said I could, but the point I am making is this: you cannot trust councils to always do the right thing, because they simply do not. And that is very important, because the purpose of a Reserves Act is to prevent councils and others from making those mistakes. The Reserves Act is a long-term piece of legislation that is there as the bottom line, to prevent all of that from happening, yet this Government is willing to compromise it. That is point No. 1.

Another point is this, concerning the net-benefit clause. The Minister tried to get us to believe that it is OK if you take some land for housing, as long as you actually exchange it for a reserve somewhere else and there is some kind of net benefit. I have already talked about the difficulty of defining that, but what I want to talk about next is this, and that is the strategic distribution of reserves. If you think about the long-term effect of this provision, what it could mean is that open space reserves get pushed further and further out of urban areas, towards the urban fringe. So you have got a reserve inside an urban area. Somebody says: “Let’s take that for housing. We’ll get a lot of housing out of that. We’ll create another reserve, but it will be a lot further away”—almost certainly a lot further away—“towards the urban fringe, because that will be cheaper and easier land to acquire.” They will concoct some story about net benefit that will persuade a council, and there you go.

So the net effect of this provision, I say to the Minister—and I want his specific response to this—will be that urban green space will be constantly pushed further and further out of urban areas, towards the urban fringe. So what you are going to get, in effect, is a doughnut effect. You will get this urban area in the centre, with virtually no reserves in it, and the exchanged urban reserves will all be dotted around the urban fringe. In strategic terms that is an extremely serious adverse effect of this provision. The Minister just shook his head, so I am going to wait with interest to hear why he does not think that will happen. It will not be enough just to give an opinion, because it is perfectly clear to me, and, I am sure, to others that what I have said is almost inevitably going to be the effect of this. It compromises the Reserves Act in yet another way in that respect. I am waiting to hear the response.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 61

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2.

Noes 60

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Part 2 agreed to.

Part 3 Amendments to Public Works Act 1981

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): This debate includes schedule 6.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I want to make two main points with regard to Part 3. The first of those you may or may not like, Mr Chair, and that is that in looking at the changes being made to the Public Works Act, as a member who was not on the Local Government and Environment Committee, I have to say that—and I am sure many members in the Committee will be in the position that I am in, where from time to time we find ourselves dealing with matters in our electorates that are about the acquisition of land under the Public Works Act. It is never without controversy and it always has confusion, I believe, built into it, because of the understanding of what exactly a public work is, and then the roles of different public entities in that.

This is the bit you might not like, Mr Chair, so I want to divert on to an example, just briefly, which is one that I am dealing with right now in Wellington City. This actually involves something that the member in the Chair, Trevor Mallard, is quite familiar with, which is the teachers college in Karori, which is currently subject to a Public Works Act disposal process. The question has been raised about the entity that is disposing of it, Victoria University of Wellington, and other public entities, including the Ministry of Education and the Wellington City Council, and what their roles are. My problem with reading the changes in the bill here, and I suspect the answer is relatively simple, is that these look like the kinds of tinkering changes that are being made because there have been some interest issues around the way in which compensation is paid, but they do not get to the heart of the issues in the Public Works Act itself.

I do note that submitters, including the Auckland District Law Society’s resource management law committee and Vector, all argued that these changes should only really be occurring as part of an overall review of the Public Works Act. My strong view is that that is what is needed, and I do not have confidence in the changes contained in Part 3 because that review has not taken place. We are now going through yet another example of this up at Victoria University of Wellington. There is considerable confusion as to what the role of public good is and how we decide whether or not another public entity has an interest in land or has an interest in buildings, and for me I think it is disappointing to see the legislation come through in what I would regard as a relatively piecemeal way. So I just make that point; Minister Smith may choose to respond on that or not. I do note from the departmental report that there is no intention to review the Public Works Act in total, and, as I say, I think the changes that are in the bill here now sit on their own. Perhaps they are useful, perhaps they are not, but they certainly do not address those wider issues of the operation of the Public Works Act.

Perhaps to endear myself somewhat more to the Chair than I did in that intervention, I do want to raise the question of clause 172 and the changes to the way in which compensation will be determined, and the process and the use of Orders in Council to do that. This did attract the attention of the Regulations Review Committee, because, as is its right, it looks at other pieces of legislation that are coming before the House—

Chris Bishop: That’s right.

GRANT ROBERTSON: —and asks itself—a very good committee, is it not, Mr Bishop? It is well chaired, at the moment, by our David Parker. I do not know about some of the other members—they are really just time servers, many of them—but it is certainly well chaired by David Parker and, indeed, by David Cunliffe before him.

What that committee was concerned about was whether or not there was adequate justification for this particular regulation-making power. This is around the consideration of how we determine whether or not there should be a change in the level of compensation and, clearly, that is an important consideration. The problem that—and I would like, perhaps, the Minister to explain to us—is the process that will now be gone through, which is contained in an amended section at the end of clause 172, which would be new section 72E, I think, in the Public Works Act itself.

Firstly, I am concerned about the drafting, which is phrased in the negative, which makes it quite hard to understand. So it is phrased as “The Minister must not recommend the making of an Order in Council under this section unless the Minister is of the opinion that it is necessary or desirable to do so having regard to the following:”—so that is just a drafting point but, more specifically, are the criteria that are then used there, and whether or not they are going to create a fair and equitable process for deciding upon what levels of compensation there are—Mr Chair? “Ding”—Mr Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Oh! Grant Robertson. I am sorry. I was captivated.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Ha, ha! This happened to me last night, as well. There is obviously something about my style of speaking that is leading—ha, ha—people into a kind of existential trance around the subject of the Public Works Act. I could just go on for days here and no one would notice.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Only once.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, thank you. Exactly, Mr Chair. The concern I have got is whether or not this will actually lead to a fair and equitable way of deciding upon compensation. Compensation, in these matters, is very rarely ever easily comparable, in that the level of damage or the level of need for compensation can be extremely variable even in very similar circumstances.

Recently in Wellington we had people having their land acquired for a road that is now never going to be built—using the Basin Reserve flyover as an example. And within that there were quite different experiences for the people who were getting compensation. You had some people who had lived in properties for a very, very long period of time, who had a great deal more—and this is specifically about the costs of moving, this clause. They had particular and deeper roots and bigger levels of change. On the other hand, you had people who had only been there a short period of time—perhaps, owned a smaller parcel of land.

The point I am making and the question that I am asking the Minister is whether or not this has been thought through properly. I do not think it is a particularly bad provision; I am just concerned that, in the context of my earlier comments, the Public Works Act itself is actually ripe for a big review, and this could well be an example where we are tinkering around with a piece of that Act, as a result of another piece of legislation, which actually may or may not make the situation better.

Then there is the issue of doing it through Order in Council, and I would invite the Minister in the chair, Nick Smith, to be able to stand up and tell us whether or not this is the correct way to go about it. I certainly understand the point—and I think most submitters did—that at the moment section 72 has a figure of $2,000. That has not changed since 1975. I think we all understand that there probably needs to be change there. The question is: do the criteria that are now contained in new section 72E(2) actually give us the right process for doing that and take into account a broad set of circumstances?

So I am not going to prolong my intervention, other than to say that I would seek some guidance from the Minister as to both the broader point of other changes to the Public Works Act that might be being considered and also, specifically, the basis on which this process has been chosen and whether it will actually allow for the diverse circumstances of people affected by it.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Can I follow on from my colleague Grant Robertson. I did sit on the Local Government and Environment Committee. I am also aware of some of the background to this. Some of the background to this actually goes way back to the time when the Hon Richard Worth was a Minister here, and he was the Minister responsible for the Public Works Act. He had a view—and I think he was right—that the compensatory provisions under the Public Works Act presently, other than a very small $2,000 payment, are purely compensatory for financial loss. The inconvenience and uprooting of people’s lifestyles, and the effect on people’s individual lifestyles, as a consequence of something that has been done for the public good through the Public Works Act, meant that the provisions under the Public Works Act, which go back a long, long time, were not sufficiently generous. We are now a sufficiently wealthy country to actually be able to say: “Actually, we’ve got to go a little bit further than pure compensation and give people a little bit of compensation not just for their financial loss but for the change that has been forced upon them in the name of the public good.”

There are lots of examples overseas where that is done, and the experience, I think, of those overseas jurisdictions and the view of officials was that if there was just a little bit more generosity in the system, there will be a bit less conflict, there will be a bit less money wasted on the argument about the last percent or two of the valuation, and there will be more acceptance of the need to do this for the public good, with a wee bit more generosity shown by the Crown. And I think that is the essence that lies behind these provisions, and for that reason, notwithstanding the questions that are rightly raised by Grant Robertson, this is actually the only part of this legislation that we are actually voting for, even though we will eventually be opposing the overall bill.

That said, can I address one of the issues that was raised by Grant Robertson, which is that the Regulations Review Committee recommendation was that the amount of that generosity ought not to be changed by regulation. In the end, the Regulations Review Committee is concerned to ensure that people do not lose rights through regulation, and so the committee changed the provision to say that the amount of that discretionary payment can be increased by regulation, but it cannot be decreased. That is where the committee got to, and I think that that is a fair enough answer.

The question that I am left with—and I would like the Minister’s answer to this, because I do think that overall this is an advance in the law, which is why I can support it. But those who are entitled to these payments for effect on their lifestyle are only the owners of the property, and any residential tenancy is excluded. We are actually at the point now in New Zealand where half of the people in New Zealand live in rented accommodation. Let us say it was the Waterview connection where it is that a house is acquired for a public purpose—all of the compensation goes to the owner and none of it goes to the occupant. And I wonder whether that should be reviewed. I know we cannot do it in this bill because it is actually a reasonably substantial piece of policy work, but I would be interested in the Minister’s view about clause 170 of this bill, which inserts new section 59, which defines the owner as being the person who occupies the land, but then it excludes someone who is on a weekly tenancy agreement, a monthly tenancy, or a tenancy to which the Residential Tenancy Act applies. It seems to me that even if someone has been in the same property for 20 or 30 years, being a good tenant, putting down roots, I am not sure, if my reading is correct, whether they are entitled to compensation.

It may be that I am missing something here, but I would appreciate a response from the Minister on that point. That said, I think that there are some good provisions in this part of the bill.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): It has been interesting reading Part 3 of the piece of legislation, because I think it is part of this bill that we can support because what it will do is compensate people who, for public works, have their homes taken from them. I found an interesting piece of research titled: “Solatium Payments for Public Works - An International Comparison” by Mike Todd and John McDonagh, Property Group, Lincoln University. So their definition of “solatium” is “compensation awarded for injury to the feelings as distinct from physical sufferings and pecuniary loss. It is derived from the concept of ‘solace’, defined as something that gives comfort or consolation in misery, disappointment or distress.”

So I think it is great that we are actually addressing a piece of legislation that has not updated the compensation amount since 1975. The original compensation amount—just for everyone’s interest—was a 1970 amendment to the Public Works Act of 1928, and it was set at $500. And the interesting thing about that when you look at the average price of a house at that time, which was $12,000 if you lived in Auckland—so, essentially, it was 4.2 percent. And the reason I bring up that percentage is that the next change happened in 1974 and it went to $2,000, and at that time houses were valued at $25,000. So, essentially, it became 8 percent compensation.

When I looked at the research I just quoted earlier, it seems that jurisdictions internationally, in providing this solatium payment or a premium on the market value of properties, either do it by virtue of the market value or they set an amount. In New Zealand we have had this amount, $2,000, since 1975. In Australia, its Commonwealth Parliament sets it at $10,000, but if you look at the states it is actually 10 percent of the market value. That is how they determine it. So depending on the value of the property that the Government takes for public works, their premium is then 10 percent. That is so for Western Australia and for Victoria. ACT and New South Wales are pretty much like the Commonwealth: they set an amount, which is $15,000. When you go to Canada—the jurisdiction is really interesting—the Federal Government does not compensate or provide this premium, but British Columbia, Manitoba, and Alberta provide 5 percent of market value. The UK is 10 percent, and the most interesting jurisdiction is India, which provides a 30 percent premium, which I find really interesting.

So I guess, from my perspective, when I look at how we have set it, the average value of a property in New Zealand, based on the figures I obtained from December 2016, was $515,000. So when I look at the actual compensation package that is contained in this legislation, it seems that we are averaging about 10 percent, which I find quite interesting. So everyone will get $35,000 but—based on your negotiation—within 6 months of the Government approaching you, we will give landowners another $10,000, and possibly another $5,000, depending on their circumstances. So if the average property in New Zealand is $550,000, they are going to get $50,000 compensation or premium, then it kind of averages out at 10 percent.

So I am just wondering whether the Minister will be able to explain whether that was deliberate, because from some of the contributions from my colleagues earlier it seems that the Order in Council might not be the appropriate way to do it. So maybe just benchmarking it at 10 percent—although I guess it depends on the value of the properties that you will end up taking—might be a better way forward. But in saying that, I think what the Order in Council will do is provide the opportunity to update the amount, as opposed to it being set up at a particular amount. Obviously, when we look back from 1975 to today, $2,000 is an inappropriate compensation.

So I do want to say that I absolutely support the intention of this part of the legislation, but I am now curious about how we came up with those figures, whether we looked at just making it a percentage, and I know that the percentage would be difficult if we look at the April 2017 value of a property in Auckland, because it is nearly a million dollars. Obviously, compensating 10 percent of a million dollars increases the liability for the Government. So, if the Minister wants to elucidate, I would really appreciate it because I found it really fascinating looking at this research. Thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you to my colleague Louisa Wall. I learnt some interesting facts in that contribution. The Minister, Nick Smith, might like to, when he is responding to that point—the 10 percent extra, if you like, has a maximum set at $25,000. I can understand why there is a need for some maximum, because we are, in addition to the 10 percent, properly compensating people for their losses. So this is in addition to the compensatory payment they are due. They are getting something extra. And I would not like to think that someone who has got a $100 million property could get another $10 million from taxpayers, because that is going too far in the opposite direction, because they are already getting compensation for their $100 million property. You should not be giving them $10 million extra.

The question as to whether $25,000 is sufficient is something that I would like the Minister’s response to, because, of course, the difficulty for a person whose property is acquired is that the date at which they settle their compensation might be some months before they can purchase a replacement property. And when we have periods of house-price inflation—this is not a reference just to current house-price inflation in Auckland; it is a recent occurrence, but it happens periodically through time—there are times when house prices increase quite quickly, and if you are out of the market for 3 months because you have agreed your payment but you have not got your money and during that period house prices rise, you could be behind through no fault of your own. So I would like some information from the Minister as to what the period generally is between when compensation is set and when it is paid out, because it is not until it is paid out that the person who is receiving the compensation has the opportunity to buy a replacement property.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I am happy to respond to some of the questions that have been put. I welcome the broad support in Parliament for being more generous in the Public Works Act. I think every member of this House would see that $2,000, which was set in 1975, as pretty raw for the disruption to a property owner and the impacts of the Public Works Act of taking a property.

There are three things that are done in this part. Firstly, that amount is lifted to $35,000. Secondly, there is a further incentive payment that is set for settling quickly. Thirdly, there is an Order in Council power to adjust that into the future so that it is not so out of date. I do want to comment that this is actually a really important provision aligned to the infrastructure challenges that New Zealand faces—so often infrastructure projects are held up, sometimes for years, because of very strong disputes over the levels of compensation and the fairness of either a local authority or a Crown agency acquiring someone’s property.

There is nothing magical about the $35,000 increase from the $2,000 that was set in 1975. It is related to what we think is being fair to both the taxpayers as well as the property owner. I do not agree with those who say that it should be proportional to the value. The impact of that would be that if someone has got a $2 million property, it is a lot more generous than if somebody has got a half-million-dollar or a million-dollar property. My view would be actually that there is a disruption to the person’s life as a consequence of compulsorily requiring them to sell their property and to move, and the actual cost of that disruption to their life is not much different, in my view, as to whether the house is a house for that family. So I think a fixed sum is appropriate.

I am particularly enthusiastic about there being a time incentive. I, like most members of this House, have dealt with dozens of constituents who have been through the Public Works Act. I have seen people—for instance, on the new highway between Motueka and Māpua in the Nelson region—who were involved in 10 to 15 years of disputes, and in my view that was incredibly disruptive and stressful for their lives. Actually putting some extra money on the table and getting these things resolved more quickly is in the interests of the public authority to be able to get on and build the infrastructure but also for the families who are affected to be able to get on with their lives.

Why we hold the view that it is appropriate by Order in Council to adjust these amounts in the future is, frankly, because we do not want to be sitting here in 20 years’ time thinking that the $50,000 that we have set today with the extra premiums for the increase and the time frames—that at some time in the future they equally become out of date. So the Order in Council mechanism and the fact that Parliament has not looked at this since 1975, when I was in primary school—actually being able to have a mechanism to look at it more frequently through Order in Council makes good sense.

In respect of the issue as to why it does not cover residential tenancies, the average period of residential tenancy in New Zealand is between 18 months and 2 years. It is interesting that a large number of the property settlements that are done through the Public Works Act have deferred settlements and deferred occupation. The reason for that is that often the public agency needs the security that they have got a property so that they can build a road, but actually by the time they get through all the other mechanisms it is many years down the track from when they actually acquire it, and often they lease it back to the tenant. So I do not think that case is strong.

Mr Robertson asked for a broader review of the Public Works Act. I think there are some issues that are incredibly difficult, and it is no coincidence that the Public Works Act has not been touched for a long time. I believe, in terms of the powers of this Parliament to take people’s private property, as essential as it is, that it raises a whole lot of really difficult questions. Our Government is not in a hurry to do so. We think this is a useful tweak. If other parties want to drive an earlier reform of that bill—

Phil Twyford: You were going to for the UDAs, weren’t you?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Oh no, there are provisions in the urban development authority proposals that make change to the Public Works Act, but we do not have it on our schedule at the moment. We think these are useful amendments, and I think there is actually pretty broad consensus across the Parliament that these provisions are useful.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I understand that when we are discussing issues in the Public Works Act, the problem of compensation and the rate is important, and I appreciate the contributions that have been made by a number of members tonight. But that is not the particular clause I want to address in my contribution—or my first contribution. Anyway, I would just say to Minister Nick Smith, though, that I think the Public Works Act was 1981, so he would have graduated to secondary school by the time this was last debated in Parliament, rather than being at primary school.

I want to address the provisions that are in clause 169. It is one of the few provisions in the whole of this Resource Legislation Amendment Bill that was not amended at all by the Local Government and Environment Committee. It is quite unusual—clause 169 was just completely intact. When I read through the submissions on this clause I expected that all submitters would have been in support of it. I thought if it has not been touched then the submitters must have all thought it was a jolly fine thing. Actually, they did not.

One submission I was particularly interested in was from the Resource Management Law Association. That is a group that is specifically interested in the law that we are debating right now. It supported the intention of the clause—perhaps I will go back a step. Clause 169 amends section 24 of the Public Works Act and puts in a new subsection. That subsection allows for the Environment Court to accept evidence that has been presented at a previous hearing, on a related inquiry or an appeal, by the court. So you do not have to go through, you know, repetition of the same issue, even though it is being heard by different jurisdictions. That is the intent of this.

The Resource Management Law Association supported that intent. It said “This is a good idea.”, but, and this is the important bit, I want the Minister to explain, in a way that I can explain to my constituents, why he did not agree with its remedy to fix what it saw as a fundamental flaw in this clause, and that was that it does not achieve the purpose that it is intended to achieve. You cannot get much more fundamental than that. That is the intention—reducing the duplication between the various jurisdictions so the hearings can just be heard again on the same basis, rather than a new regime having to be invented for the next hearing—but the association said that alignment does not occur through this clause 169.

If people who are involved in resource management law ask us, as members of Parliament—this is what the association said; this is what the law association said, and they are the experts in this area. Why did the select committee not change it? Why did the Committee of the whole House not change it? Why did the Minister block a suggested fix to a problem presented by a group of people who agreed with his solution but just said: “This clause won’t not achieve it.”? That is the question that I am really keen on having answered by the Minister.

Not only did the Resource Management Law Association say that this is not going to fix the problem, but it actually suggested ways of doing it. It was really the icing on the cake. All the Minister had to do—and I understand the Minister was very heavily involved in the detail of this work, even though it was being heard by a select committee—was pick up its suggestions and move it across. I am keen on hearing directly from the Minister as to why that identification of a fundamental problem was not accepted, and, if it was accepted, why the solution was not acted on.

I want to ask the Minister one more question before I finish my contribution on this clause, and that is: in what other situations does he consider that this parallel process would be appropriate? In what other areas is there duplication where this fix might be applied to? I agree with reducing bureaucracy. I agree with reducing duplication. I agree because it means that more members of the public are likely to have access to situations where they can have their voices heard. But if reducing bureaucracy and lowering access to justice mean that more members of our community are denied that opportunity to have their voices heard, then I oppose it with every strength in my body. Too many people are being locked out of having their voices heard. Too many people hear about decisions after they have been made. Too many people are restricted—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We are on Part 3.

Hon RUTH DYSON: That is exactly what this provision does. Too many people are restricted, and I want to see what other processes—

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): I want to make a contribution to Part 3, particularly clause 172, inserting new section 72E, and it might just be a question of clarification, which the Minister for the Environment may be able to respond to. I want to congratulate him for, I guess, bringing it up to date, in which land is acquired under the Public Works Act.

As a member for, pretty much, the East Coast, I have a real live situation on my hands that I too would like some advice on from the Minister. We have a railway line—the one from Wairoa to Gisborne. It is a beautiful railway line. It has been closed, and there are discussions, obviously, around reopening, potentially, this railway line sometime in the near future. The issue with this particular railway line is that it is on land that is quite subject to erosion. There is the possibility with this opportunity that we may need to acquire adjacent land if we are going to open that railway line.

That then leads me into the question I would like to pose to the Minister: in looking through his clauses on the public works and the compensation, am I right to assume that public works that require land from Māori land owners for, for example, railway infrastructure, are covered by this clause that we are debating in Part 3? I do not see it specifically, but I just wanted some clarification from the Minister about whether it does include multiple-owned land. If not, what would happen in the example I have given if Ngāti Rangiwaho, for example—which is the hapū, as part of Ngai Tāmanuhiri, that owns much of that land in the northern part of the electorate of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. If, as part of opening the railway, the land of the iwi and hapū will be required—does this clause that we are debating in Part 3, the adjustment of the compensation payable under clause 172, extend to multiple-owned Māori land? If not, then I would respectfully ask the Minister: in this real live example that I have given you, where would the owners of the Ngāti Rangiwaho estate turn to if their land is acquired for the opening up of that particular rail line?

That is a short contribution, but I still believe it is an important point that we put this on the floor of the Committee, and perhaps get some guidance or assurances from the Minister. Does this cover multiple-owned Māori land? If it does not, where do multiple-owned or freehold Māori land owners turn to if their land is acquired for, for example, the building of a rail line? Thank you.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members, we move then to Part 3. The question is that Part 3 stand part. Those of that opinion will say “Aye”, to the contrary “No”—

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think it is Part 4 that you are putting.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, we are on Part 3. We are voting on Part 3.

Part 3 agreed to.

Part 4 Amendments to Conservation Act 1987

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I want to explain why the Labour Party will be voting against Part 4. The reason relates to clause 181(2)(b)(ii), which sets the time period within which anyone who wants to object to an application for a concession has to file their objection. My understanding—the Minister can correct me if I have got this wrong—is that presently there is a 40 working-day period for people to put in an objection in respect of a concession application on conservation land, and that is being halved to 20 working days. I want to explain why, in practice, that is going to mean that people who should have a say in this are not going to have a say.

Conservation land is public land that is being managed on behalf of the people of New Zealand by the Department of Conservation, where civil society generally represents its interests in the conservation estate through groups like Federated Mountain Clubs, Forest & Bird, and other environmental groups. They might be local tramping clubs, or they might be local environmental defence groups. Those groups are groups of volunteers who meet periodically. They do not spend their lives scanning public notices, although they probably have a system through which they look periodically at public notices. They do not meet every week; generally, they meet monthly. In order to make a decision as to whether they are going to support or oppose something, or try to participate in an application for a concession in the area that affects them, they have generally got to meet as a committee so that they can take a decision through their rules—which are probably rules for an incorporated society—as to whether they are going to do something. Until they have done that, no individual member of that committee can just go off and do something off their own bat. They have got to make a proper decision in accordance with their constitution.

Achieving that within 20 working days is often impossible, or at least quite inconvenient. So let us take an example. Let us say a group meets on the 20th day of the month. It has to put out an agenda to its members to get its members to come along. It probably has to put that out at least a week before then, so that would be on about the 13th day of the month, in the week prior. So what happens if something comes to the notice of the Otago Tramping Club, down in my patch in Otago. It has just had a meeting, so its next meeting is not for another month, and yet within 20 working days it has got to make a decision as to whether it should put in an objection or put in a submission so that it is heard—it might not be objecting, but it might just want the terms to be changed a little. It has got to do that within 20 working days, which may be impractical, and I think that is what sits behind the old rule of having 40 working days. It is to make sure that members of civil society, as they go about their normal 1-monthly cycle of business, can have a bit of time to get the public notice, to think about whether they should be putting this before their committee structure, to make a decision, to prepare their submission, and to send it to the director-general. I think 4 weeks is impractical.

I would also like to hear the Minister say—and there may be provisions about this already in the Conservation Act, but if there are, I do not know about them—what happens over the Christmas period. Does that automatically get extended if something is notified during that period? Is there a longer period that applies, or do you ignore certain days during that Christmas period, when, traditionally, these organisations do not operate as effectively as they do during the rest of the year? So I am going to be submitting an amendment—unless there is already one on the Table in the name of my more efficient colleagues in the Committee—to put that 20 working days to 40 working days.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Just following on from the Hon David Parker, we will certainly be supporting that amendment, because there has been a 40-day period for the public to make submissions on concession applications since the Conservation Act was introduced and passed in 1987. So it has got a 30-year track record of working, and Mr Parker makes very valid points.

Conservation land is public land. All New Zealanders have an interest in how it is managed. I take the Minister back to major proposals like the one in Fiordland for a big monorail. Eighteen thousand people made submissions and spoke out to protect Te Wai Pounamu, to protect Fiordland’s beautiful forest, and to protect the Mavora Lakes from that monorail proposal.

One of the difficulties with having a 20-day period for making submissions is that the first time the public has an opportunity to actually comment on the proposal—to actually even understand it—is usually when the Department of Conservation notifies the proposal that the applicant has put in. Rarely do applicants go out and actually engage community organisations or environmental organisations like Federated Mountain Clubs or Forest & Bird. It comes to public attention when it is notified, when the assessment of effects and the supporting documents actually go into the public domain. So for big, complex projects like the monorail and like the bus tunnel—which was an 11-kilometre bus tunnel that had its portal proposed at the start of the Routeburn Track, which would have completely ruined that experience—having the public have only 20 working days to get an understanding of that proposal is far too short.

If you have a longer submission period, it means that submitters can go and talk to engineers, as they did in the case of the bus tunnel, and to ecologists, as they did in the case of the monorail, and ensure that submissions are based on good analysis of the proposal and a good understanding of the potential effects. Shutting it down to only a minimum of 20 working days will mean poorly crafted submissions, potentially, and it just totally overrides the significant public interest in how our conservation lands are managed and overrides the number of people who want to get involved when we have had these big commercial developments like the monorail.

The second point is that 50 percent of international visitors come to New Zealand wanting an experience of natural landscapes and wanting to connect with natural areas. If we have poorly planned, poorly sited commercial development on our public conservation lands, we undermine that experience, which attracts so many visitors and which, through tourism, supports a lot of our local, regional, and national communities recognising the contribution that tourism makes to our GDP. There are some 4,000 concession operations, from tourism and guided walking to grazing, on conservation land. All of these deserve proper scrutiny. This bill, by cutting in half the notification period, through clause 181, is consistent with the provisions in the rest of the bill, which seek to reduce the public’s opportunities to actually engage in decision making.

Third point: we have a major problem, and I want the Minister to enlighten us here about clause 182. OceaniaGold made a submission, and it wanted the time frames for notified access applications for mining on conservation land to be consistent with concession applications. So it wanted a halving in that notification period, from 40 days to 20 days, as well. The Department of Conservation—because of the political direction of its Minister, probably—has gone along with that. This was not in the bill as introduced, so what basis does the Minister have for making this change around mining access arrangements and for halving the notification times for them through the consequential amendments around clause 182 when that was not in the bill as introduced and Parliament and the select committee have had no opportunity to get public submissions on this?

I would remind the Minister of applications like the access arrangement by Bathurst Resources for mining on the Denniston Plateau. That was the subject of huge public interest and significant ecological values are being damaged by that application, and yet we are seeing a law change on which there has been no public consultation, because OceaniaGold, in its submission—in the departmental report on page 384—said that it sought to align these notification time frames for access arrangements on public conservation land. So it is their submission that is becoming the platform for this law change rather than it being in the bill as introduced. We object to the public not having had an opportunity to have a say, because we think people like Forest and Bird, Fish & Game, Federated Mountain Clubs, which defend the public interest in our conservation lands, would have actually put in submissions opposing this.

Again, mining applications are very complex. They have a number of impacts. Mining companies do not tend to consult the public before they lodge their access application, so the only time that the public actually gets to see the whole of that is when it is notified. So, again, it is ridiculous to have a 20 working day period for that, not 40 working days. I suspect that the Minister will say: “Well, it can be more than 20 working days. It doesn’t require just 20 working days.” But it is still giving the Minister the power to reduce it to that limited period. It is public land. The public should have the maximum opportunity to make submissions on development applications and mining applications that are going to damage conservation values, ecological values, and recreational values.

So this is a bad bit of the bill. It overrides the public interest in conservation lands and it is consistent with other provisions in the bill that seek to reduce the opportunities for public participation. We oppose it.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I want to take only a short call on this part of the bill just to say two things—first of all, to agree with what Eugenie Sage has just said about the whole effect of this part of the bill. It is perfectly clear that what is intended here is to actually minimise opportunities for the public to as little as 20 days for making submissions on what could be very complex applications. That is, as Eugenie Sage said, consistent with many of the other provisions in the bill. I am not going to spend long on that because I think Eugenie Sage actually said it all very well and there is no point in my repeating it all. But that is the fundamental reason why New Zealand First could not possibly support this part of the bill. People do need to have much longer than 20 days to be able to assess and to submit on what can be very complex applications.

I want to move on to another specific point and this is the second thing I want to say. That is in relation to the new section 17SB, inserted by clause 178 of the bill. In that it says in subsection (1) “If the Minister is satisfied that an application obviously does not comply with, or is obviously inconsistent with, the provisions of this Act or any relevant conservation management strategy or conservation management plan, he or she may decline the application.” That is a very strange piece of drafting. In fact, I think it is quite amateurish drafting—with all due respect to the drafters. Why is the term “obviously” there? It is a highly subjective term. How can something be obvious—is another issue. But I just think it is deficient drafting.

It is clearly intended that the term “obviously” is to qualify the terms “non-compliance” and “inconsistency”, otherwise the word would not be there. So it is there to qualify “non-compliance” or “inconsistency” with the Act, and therefore it is open to the Minister to approve an application even if it is not compliant or is not consistent because it is not “obviously” so. That is actually what would be open to a court to find. So why on earth is this term “obviously” there, if it is not for any reason other than that which I have said? I think the Minister should look at that, and, if he is genuine about the whole system that is set out here, he would delete the term “obviously” because it is highly problematic and, in my view, actually creates more problems than it solves.

I want to refer to what it says in the commentary about this. There is one sentence only about it and it says this: “As amended, new section 17SB would clarify that the Minister may decline obviously non-complying applications (without having to make a decision on this within the originally proposed 20-working-day period).” What on earth is that supposed to mean? It does not, to me, add any clarity to it at all. In fact, I believe that the addition of the word “obviously” actually does exactly the opposite. It makes it very unclear in terms of what can be declined and what cannot be.

So I just want to point that out to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nick Smith. That is another reason we would vote against it. If the Minister wishes to simply gloss over that, that is fine. But I say to him it is an obvious defect that the word “obviously” has been put in there. If you took the word “obviously” out—

Phil Twyford: Obviously.

DENIS O’ROURKE: Obviously, if you took the word “obviously” out, it would not actually change what, I believe, the subsection is intended to mean. But the addition of the word “obviously” actually creates a difficulty, because it can be taken only to qualify the inconsistency or the non-compliance. What that means I am not sure, but it is an issue and I just draw it to the Minister’s attention. We will be voting against it anyway.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I am happy to provide an explanation, and can I acknowledge the work of both Maggie Barry and the Department of Conservation in developing these more practical provisions for dealing with concession applications.

I think it is important to, firstly, understand and explain—for the question from the member from New Zealand First—that at the moment, when a concession application is received by the Department of Conservation, the Minister has to make a decision as to whether they intend to grant the concession. It causes huge confusion. The member may well recall the controversy, when I was privileged to be Minister of Conservation, around both the tunnel proposal and in respect of the monorail proposal. It creates quite a difficult confusion, because it is as though the Government wants to favour. What we do want to have is—and members like Eugenie have been absolutely correct in saying these lands are there primarily for conservation purposes. The Minister of Conservation has got a really important role to protect that.

What is being provided in the improved process in new section 17SB, inserted by clause 178, is that before an application is even notified, the department and the Minister are able to say: “No, I am not even prepared to consider that. I don’t want to publicly notify; it is obvious that it is inconsistent with the purposes of what that land serves.” In other words, it is saying that it is so out of left field that we just want to say no at the beginning, and I think that is a reasonable provision. These are public lands and for that purpose.

The second question that has been asked is around the time frames and the 40 days / 20 days. The challenge I have for members opposed to this provision is: why is it any different from the Resource Management Act (RMA)? Whether it be for mining or whether it be for substantive activities, if the arguments that Mr Parker wants to put forward that say that you have got community conservation organisations that are concerned—

Hon David Parker: They’re public lands.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Or what about a major mining proposal that has big impacts on the quality of water? That is a public resource, equally important as our conservation land.

What the Government is saying, both in terms of the notification period—the 20 working days—and what is provided for in this part around the Christmas break period, is to make the provisions exactly the same around conservation concessions as they are in the RMA. If members of the Labour Party and other Opposition members want to argue that these time frames are wrong, I would put to them that they should also change the RMA, because you can have massive, multibillion-dollar projects with huge impacts on public resources, on coastal space—all sorts of things—and I just think there is a really sensible argument for those to be consistent.

The third point I would make around these provisions is actually a real problem for Ministers of Conservation—well, certainly when I was there, and previously. It is that people can lodge applications for concessions with minimal information requirements. I do draw members’ attention to this part, which substantially boosts the Department of Conservation’s requirement that if you want to apply for a concession on public land, you have to provide a lot more and better-quality information for that concession, even before the clocks start ticking and they are being publicly notified. That, I think, is a substantial improvement in the way in which we manage concessions on public land.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I actually was not going to take a call on this part, but the Minister for the Environment’s responses led me to do that, and it is around—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Inspired you.

GRANT ROBERTSON: —well, he is an inspiring man—clause 181(2)(ii) and the question of reducing the time for objection or submission to 20 days in the case of a concession. I think it is two points that I want to make, and then a question. The first point—actually, Eugenie Sage referred to it but in passing—is that we are talking about public land. That is the thing that makes this distinctive. While it is possible for Resource Management Act - related cases to have that, it has to be public land, in this case, because it is in the Department of Conservation’s interest. That is what makes it different. Going back—and, actually, I think Eugenie Sage might have been working on the Conservation Act in 1987 in a different guise—there was clearly an intent to make the time frame longer. Forty days is actually a very unusual time frame in terms of the law.

Hon David Parker: It is not a notice on a neighbouring gate.

GRANT ROBERTSON: That is right, exactly. It is not a notice on a neighbouring gate, as David Parker says. We are talking about complex, often controversial concessions to public land being protected. It does not get much more important than that, and, therefore, 40 days is a sensible time period for that. I think that is the distinction that has been missed here, and, reading through the departmental report, it is clear that the Department of Conservation, when it undertook its concessions processing review in 2010, went looking for ways to streamline the process of concessions. There may well have been some justification around elements of that. What it says in the departmental report is that it was looking for, as I say, ways to streamline the processes, increase transparency, and reduce compliance costs.

That is all very well and good, but as we have stated time and again in this debate in the last 2 days, all of this law, be it law within the Resource Management Act or here within the Conservation Act, is about striking the balance between the way in which we allow sustainable development to occur and facilitate the public to be involved. This is a classic piece, this clause, of unbalancing that situation. By all means, find ways—and there are, in earlier clauses in this part—of streamlining the process, but let us not sacrifice the ability, as David Parker has noted often, of small-scale community groups to be able to participate in what is a large and, often, significant concession about public land.

Having made that point, and very much supporting David Parker’s typescript—as they say—amendment on this matter to return to a 40-day level, I want to ask the Minister what consideration was given to submitters who came up with other alternatives, one of which was a 30-day time frame, rather than the 40 days or 20 days, which would align it with some other pieces of legislation that have been passed by this House, or whether or not there was the ability to define large and complex conditions, which would be at 40 days, and then less complex concessions at 20 days—

Hon David Parker: Obviously.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Obviously, as Mr O’Rourke and Mr Parker have now both said. I would seek some feedback from the Minister, because it would seem to me that simply a blanket going from a 40-day process, which has been in place—we have just been celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Department of Conservation. It has been in place for 30 years and has stood us in good stead as a country. To make that change on a blanket basis seems to me to deny the importance of that land to many New Zealanders and the importance of the process of going through and allowing time for submissions.

So we oppose this part because of this clause, but I do not think I have heard a sufficient explanation from the Minister as to why he may not have considered some of those in-between options. Overall, this remains, unfortunately, symptomatic of this whole piece of legislation, that in the Minister’s rush to appear to do something about issues within resource management he has chosen to accept a reduction in the ability of the public to be involved in really important concessions about public land.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I want to pick up on the contribution that my colleague was making just in passing, because what I want to really focus my contribution on is clause 182, which has not been discussed much this evening so far, and I think it deserves it. The Minister for the Environment has been assuring us throughout this debate that the point of this is to reduce bureaucracy, to streamline the process, but not to cut out the opportunity for people to have their legitimate say. I believe that he is genuine in his consideration of those facts, but I do not believe that it is reflected in the legislation that we are discussing at the moment.

The alignment in this Part 4 that we are discussing is between publicly notified concessions to the Department of Conservation and resource consent applications. The new provisions are that the Minister of Conservation has 10 days to decide whether a concession application is compliant or non-compliant. The intent to grant certification is replaced, and I appreciate the Minister taking the flak in this debate for the notification of the monorail. It actually was not his error that caused that, if my recollection is right; he inherited that from a previous Minister of Conservation and got it sorted out with a very wise decision, and I hope he always sticks to that.

It also reduces—and this is the bit that has been contentious in the debate so far—the time frame for public notification to receive submissions from 40 days to 20 days. A number of people have contributed to this debate to say how unrealistic that is on matters of such importance. The Minister, who has been the Minister for Conservation and the Minister for the Environment, understands the complexity of some of the proposals and understands the deep pockets that some of the proponents have, compared with the not-for-profit organisations or the communities themselves who are having to rally together evidence, expert witnesses, and a lot of information in order to be on a level playing field to contest the application, if they disagree with it—and 20 days is unrealistic. So I want to challenge the Minister to support the amendment that has been tabled by my colleague the Hon David Parker—I think soon to be supported by a replicate Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in the name of David Seymour; that seems to be the pattern of SOPs at the moment—and to say that this debate has been right on this single point, and 40 days is far more appropriate.

As I said, though, that is not the main point of the contribution that I want to make. I was outraged when I saw a major change that was made to clause 182. A submitter came to the Local Government and Environment Committee and said: “By the way, we have got a really great idea of how we can make other processes more innovative.” The submitter was OceanaGold, and it thought that it would be “useful”, I think was the word it used in its submission—

Grant Robertson: Ha, ha!

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes, it would be useful. It said that the alignment of notification time frames could usefully be extended to include publicly notified access arrangements under section 61C of the Crown Minerals Act and mining activities on conservation land notified under section 49 of the Conservation Act.

Minister, you know—I know that the Minister is well aware—how people view mining applications on conservation land. The Minister has been at the receiving end of that response, but he has allowed this amendment to be made to clause 182 of the bill, which enacts OceanaGold’s submission without any public input at all. Nobody knew that that submission was being made until it was made public, by which time the submissions had closed. OceanaGold’s submission was not made public, as the Minister is well aware—he has been in this Parliament a long time and follows the rules carefully—until after all submissions had closed, and nobody had an opportunity to cross-submit, if you like, on it. Nobody had an opportunity to make a contribution. That is cheating the public’s right to have a say in a fundamental policy position such as this.

I think OceanaGold has got every right to make a submission. The Minister has got every right to agree with its submission. But to have it sneaked in as a change at the select committee and then notified to the House only once this bill had been reported back, with no chance, other than through the Committee of the whole House, to debate this very point I think is—the Minister is better than that, actually, would be my frank assessment. There is no need to have this change made. It was not part of the alignments that are sensible in principle, and some of the detail is wrong in this particular area, particularly the reduction of public input from 40 days to 20 days.

I would urge the Minister to consider over the dinner break, if we have not voted on this part before then, that OceanaGold decided that this change was useful—not in the public interest, not in the interests of having less bureaucracy and more efficiency, but in the interests of them being able to access Crown land for mining. That was not the point of the resource management legislation.

If that is a Minister’s decision—if a Minister in the National Government says: “We’ve decided that conservation land is no longer to be protected for future generations, and we’re happy to open it up for mining in much bigger areas than it currently is.”, that is a debate the public can have. It can go through a proper process. This does not do that. It goes through quite a weak process.

I am really pleased with the way that the debate has been going so far, because it has covered a number of different provisions. For those of us who are not on the select committee, this is the only opportunity that we get to hear the details that the select committee has been going over for some time. Each of these parts has got major changes to different pieces of legislation. That is quite a bold move for a Minister to take. I do not think that in the previous part he got it right. I was very disappointed that the Minister did not take an opportunity to answer the question that I raised. But I certainly hope that he will better reflect on the contribution that has been made on Part 4 in regard to changes to the Conservation Act, that he supports the amendment from David Parker, and also looks at a change to clause 182, so that that submission from OceanaGold either is able to be debated publicly or is just put to the side. It is cheating the public’s right to have a say by including it in the bill in this way.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 181 be agreed to:

That subclause 2 be amended by substituting the word “20” with “40”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Noes 62

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 4 be agreed to.

Ayes 61

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2.

Noes 60

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Part 4 agreed to.

Part 5 Amendments to Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First will be voting against this part as well. I would like to speak in particular about clause 184, which would amend section 4 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012.

What is objectionable about this is the exclusions. It defines dumping in subclause (1)(a), and dumping means “any deliberate disposal into the sea of waste or other matter from ships, aircraft, and structures at sea;”. It then goes on, in subparagraphs (ii), (iii), and (iv), in relation to any deliberate disposal into the sea of ships, the storage of waste, and any abandonment or toppling of structures.

But it is subclause (1)(b) that creates the difficulty because, having quite properly prohibited the dumping of the things that I have just mentioned, it then lists an incredible list of exclusions that are so broad as to virtually nullify the definition of dumping in subclause (1)(a). I refer in particular to the new definition of dumping in subclause (1)(b). This is what it says, and listen carefully because it takes a lot of listening to, Mr Chairman: “(i) the disposal into the sea of waste or other matter incidental to, or derived from, the normal operations of ships, aircraft, and structures at sea and their equipment, other than waste or other matter transported by or to ships, aircraft, and structures at sea, operating for the purpose of disposal of such matter or derived from the treatment of such waste or other matter on such ships, aircraft and structures;”. Did you get that, Mr Chairman? Did you get that? That is really, really clear.

Tim Macindoe: Don’t bring the Chair into the debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Yes, do not direct anything to me. I am impartial in these matters. You direct that to the Minister or to other members.

DENIS O’ROURKE: I will. I will do exactly that. Minister, did you get that? He is going to nod his head. Yes, I am sure he would. But he would be one of the few, because that is such convoluted nonsense as to be virtually unintelligible. It is so broad in its interpretation, that there is virtually no point in having a definition of dumping in subclause (1)(a) at all.

But what it really means is that we have a very, very permissive regime here, as to what can actually be dumped or disposed of at sea. It is far, far too permissive, and it actually amounts to a permission to dump, at sea or on our exclusive economic zone or continental shelf, a whole range of materials that ought not to be dumped. There is no reason for them to be disposed of at sea in that way.

But it goes on, in subclause (1)(b)(ii) and (iii), by saying that it prohibits dumping but it does not include “placement of matter for a purpose other than the mere disposal of the matter, but only if the placement is not contrary to the aims of the 1996 Protocol to the London Convention; or (iii) abandonment in the sea of matter (for example, cables, pipelines, and marine research devices) placed for a purpose other than the mere disposal of it;”.

We are talking here about deliberate acts, because abandonment is a deliberate act. It is not just a loss of those materials; it is a deliberate act to get rid of, at sea, those things that I mentioned. Somehow the words “other than mere disposal” are supposed to be some kind of a qualification. Well, I do not think they are. I think this regime is far, far too permissive. It is not something that we should be permitting as a Parliament—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

DENIS O’ROURKE: The exclusions to the definition of “dumping” in amended section 4(1)(b) are badly drafted and are far, far too wide. They amount to permission to shippers and other operators on the economic zone and the continental shelf to dump and dispose of waste to a degree that New Zealand First could not possibly support, and for that reason we will certainly be voting against it. What we expected in this bill is that there would be a tightening up of those things so that there would be fewer such activities.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I would like to make some comments around policy statements. We are dealing with clause 188 on page 149 of the bill. The bill introduces this concept of having policy statements in the EEZ. We have got to remember that there is no plan mechanism in the EEZ, so we have got the Minister being able to have virtually total control of the policy statement process.

There was quite a degree of concern from submitters because this part of the bill was largely drafted in response to industry concerns. The consultation that was done before this part of the bill was introduced and became part of the bigger bill was largely with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and industry users. It shut out environmental groups and those representing the thousands of New Zealanders who have made submissions about activities like the Trans-Tasman Resources and Chatham Rock Phosphate seabed mining proposals. So there does seem to be quite a level of public scepticism amongst some submitters about what these policy statements under the EEZ are going to be doing.

It is interesting because, as a result of the decisions of the EPA to decline consent to Trans-Tasman Resources, a huge application for seabed mining off the Taranaki coast, which would have had a sediment plume of about 50 kilometres, the decision panel concluded that there was uncertainty around the scope and significance of the effects of seabed mining as proposed by Trans-Tasman Resources. There was huge public interest in that application, 4,700 submissions, and the same with Chatham Rock Phosphate, which was a major proposal, which would have seen the destruction of benthic habitats. The fishing industry was involved in making submissions and many members of the public. Again, the decision-making panel there said that there was a lot of uncertainty. That goes back to the provisions—I think it is in section 61—of the principal exclusive economic zone legislation about the precautionary principle.

Once those decisions had come out and the EPA had said no to major seabed mining because of uncertainty about the scale of effects, then the industry came along and started lobbying the Government, and, lo and behold, we end up with the provisions in this bill that allow the development of policy statements. Submitters were concerned in terms of the new section 37A in clause 188 about the purpose of these policy statements being “to state objectives and policies to support decision-making on applications for marine consents” like seabed mining.

Originally in the bill as introduced, that was not constrained by having to have the policy statements implement, or be consistent with, the purpose of the principal Act, the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act (EEZ Act). The Local Government and Environment Committee has put in that qualification, but there are still major concerns around the process that these policy statements will go through and the major discretion that is available to the Minister. So when you have this part of the bill being the result of industry lobbying because they did not like the way the EEZ Act and the precautionary principle were applied to two seabed mining applications, and you have in new section 37B(b), where, in terms of the consultation process, unlike a lot of other things in this bill, there is a huge level of detail and prescription setting out what must happen when—here we have a clause that just allows the Minister to establish a consultation process that gives the public, iwi authorities, regional councils, and people with existing interests adequate time and opportunity to comment. Unlike the national policy statement (NPS) process in the Resource Management Act (RMA)—and this is all supposed to be integrated legislation, remember—where there are quite robust and detailed provisions around how a national policy statement should be developed, here these EEZ policy statements are much looser.

The Minister has a lot of discretion around what sort of consultation will occur. There is no requirement for an evaluation report in terms of something similar to a section 32 analysis that you get under the RMA, and there is the emphasis on consulting people with existing interests, giving them a special status that they do not have in terms of the NPS process under the RMA. I have to ask the Minister why there is so little detail around the consultation process here and why this provision has gone into the bill, and will go into the Act, as a result of industry being concerned about the precautionary principle and the way it was applied in the decisions on Chatham Rock Phosphate and Trans-Tasman Resources.

This level of discretion makes us very suspicious about the potential for a Minister to override the primary legislation by going through an EEZ policy statement process and putting in place policies that will undermine the precautionary principle. If that happens, of course, it will be much easier for Trans-Tasman Resources and others who want to go ahead with this trialling and experimentation with massively destructive seabed mining—never been tried in deep waters like they are proposing here. New Zealand is the experiment for it. Why does the Minister have such discretion when these policy statements can potentially override the provisions in the principal Act? Why has there been no public consultation on the development of this section before it became part of the bill, when there was consultation with user groups and industry stakeholders? We are quite suspicious of the purpose of these policy statements given that it has obviously been something that the industry has wanted.

I think the other issue I would like to comment on in this call is climate change, because there is a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 283 in my name that would require some consideration when the EPA is considering marine consent activities of the greenhouse gas emissions that may be associated with those activities. As Sir Geoffrey Palmer said in a major address on the RMA and our planning legislation last year, “Planning for climate change in future is an enormous issue and central government so far in New Zealand has not taken that on board.” That is what my SOP, which would change the RMA, attempted to do in ensuring that greenhouse gas emissions were taken into account here under the RMA, and there is a parallel SOP here to require decision makers to look at how the activities that are being applied for in the EEZ are actually going to contribute, or not, to our climate pollution.

The Green Party puts an emphasis on protecting the climate, because we require a stable climate. This Government, in voting down the changes to the RMA that would have seen it go back to the provisions prior to 2004, which would have allowed decision makers to take that into account, I imagine will vote down this similar SOP here, but we have a responsibility to look at how we are impacting on the climate. The Government cannot just keep dismissing actions that would be directed towards mitigation and just focus on adaptation. Of course, it is in the EEZ, where we have got these major activities for deep-sea oil drilling to try to find more oil reserves when there is already abundant evidence that known reserves are going to significantly impact on the climate if we allow them to be exploited. So there is an opportunity with this SOP to actually take climate protection into account, to put it into the principal Act. There are a number of other major amendments to the EEZ in this part of the bill. We should be doing something about the climate. Thank you.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I believe we are on Part 5. I would just like to acknowledge the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nick Smith, who has taken some opportunities to respond to questions from members of the Opposition. The issue that I want to raise goes to clause 188, which is Part 3A of the Act, and the risk of perception and the real risk of actual politicisation of the Minister choosing to appoint members to boards of inquiry for applications for publicly notifiable section 20 activities. I understand that we have some concern with this.

Other parties have concern about the fact that the Minister, under this new piece of legislation, will have the power to appoint board members. I point to new section 53, under Part 3A of the Act, set out in Part 5, where there is the ability for the Minister to appoint three to five suitable persons, and the Minister may, if he or she considers it appropriate, invite the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to nominate persons to the board and appoint people with relevant expertise, legal experience, and, obviously, tikanga Māori representation on that board, when it has in the past, I believe, been the practice that the Environmental Protection Authority has been the body that has nominated and appointed people to boards of this nature.

It is my understanding from some of the earlier commentary in the bill that during the drafting of the bill and advice to the Minister, officials advised that that should not be the case—that it should be the EPA, I understand, that should make the appointments to those boards, and not the Minister. On this side of the House, we believe that that opens up—regardless of the stripe of Government that might be there—if the Minister has given that power, the process of nominating people to that board to political influence.

I do note, as I have mentioned, that there is the ability for the Minister to look at certain skills, but under new section 53(3) it does say that the Minister can appoint three to five suitable persons. I guess the question is: what is “suitable”? Depending on the issue they might be looking at and the application that might be being made, for the Minister at the time “suitable” might be someone who is going to make something happen.

I guess my question and our question to the Minister, if he is willing to answer it, is: why have you gone down this track? It is a departure from the practice that I believe is in place at the moment, where the appointment process is free of any ministerial influence. I do note that there is an attempt to be able to give some other discretion to the EPA to be able to—“may”—have some influence on the make-up of the board of inquiry, but it seems, in the way that it is drafted at the moment, the Minister has a lot of influence in the make-up of the boards of inquiry as it stands. There may be a valid reason for that, but I think, as I pointed out at the beginning of my contribution, there is a perception risk, and a real risk, if the Minister uses the discretion that is within the legislation as drafted here, that someone could use those appointments for political reasons.

The Minister has responded to questions, and I think it is a fair enough question to ask as to why the Government and the Minister have seen fit to depart from what is the practice now and leave the process open to potential political influence.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Or accusations of it.

KRIS FAAFOI: Yes, or accusations of it. I think those boards of inquiry need to be as independent as possible. If the Minister in the chair could, potentially, address some of those concerns—if it was the case that the officials advised against making this change, why he went against that advice, and the benefit of having the Minister making those decisions as opposed to the likes of the EPA making those decisions on the appointment—I would welcome hearing the response.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I am happy to respond to the three questions that have been put by members. The first is from Mr Faafoi in respect of the issue of the boards of inquiry. A key theme of this Resource Legislation Amendment Bill is getting consistency of process—whether it be time frames for submissions or whether it be board appointment processes—so that they are common for the agencies that administer them. The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has responsibility for the boards of inquiry under the Resource Management Act (RMA). That deals with the big projects—for instance, Transmission Gully and projects in the member’s electorate to the north—and that process has worked very well.

In aligning the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) legislation with the RMA legislation, the appointment of the boards of inquiry is being applied consistently and being done with the Minister. You could argue that both be appointed by the EPA. We feel that these are decisions—and I would make the comparison for the member that, for instance, in Australia, Europe, or the US, Ministers actually have a lot more influence than just appointing the board. We think it gets the right balance between independence but also the Government of the day being able to ensure the skillset is right for the decision making.

It is a very similar answer to Eugenie Sage’s point about the national policy. She raised concerns that the idea had come from industry. Actually, I plead guilty; it was my idea. It was my idea because, under the Resource Management Act, we have national policies. In fact, the member has been one of those who have advocated for greater use of national policies. All that we are doing in the EEZ framework is providing for a similar policy statement so that you get some consistency of framework around the decisions that are being made in the EEZ.

The third question was asked by New Zealand First. That relates to the question of dumping. There is, rightly, in the EEZ legislation a prohibition on dumping, but that does mean you need to be very careful that you define what it is. For instance, if a ship or a platform that is working in the EEZ has something that is not the normal course of events—what we are trying to stop—then we need to be quite clear about that. In my view, the definition of “dumping” that is provided for in this part is quite—

Denis O’Rourke: It’s the exclusions that are the problem.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member says that the exclusions are the problem. For instance, if someone lays a cable for telecommunications purposes, at the end of the life of that telecommunications cable we do not want to catch that in the definition of being a prohibited activity, and that is why we believe the definition that is provided there is practicable and workable.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): I am happy to take a call on Part 5 of this bill. I just want to turn my comments to new section 37, inserted by clause 188, and I particularly raise the issue in new section 37A about whether it is desirable to prepare exclusive economic zone (EEZ) policy statements. The statement here says that “the Minister may have regard to—”, and we list a number of things that he should have regard to: “(a) the actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of natural resources: (b) New Zealand’s obligations under any international conventions… (c) the matters in subpart 2 of Part 1: (d) any other relevant matter.”

Then we go on to new section 37B. I want to note this because I want to ask the Minister a question in terms of his consistency of terminology. New section 37B states: “Before issuing an EEZ policy statement, the Minister must—(a) notify the public, iwi authorities, regional councils, and persons …”. I guess the question I want to raise, as was provided by submitters, is: was the guarantee of the Treaty rights to iwi, as guaranteed under the Māori Fisheries Settlement Act and how settled iwi, in terms of fisheries—just to give a bit of context to the Committee, with a lot of fishery-settled iwi you have both your inshore and your outshore zones that you can fish.

I suspect that both Ngāi Tahu and Waikato see the value in EEZ policy statements as an essential element of planning, but it raises the question of how, under this particular part of the bill, Minister Smith can guarantee that rights as conferred on iwi are protected, particularly if the Minister’s own statement says that all he has to do is notify iwi. That then raises my earlier point around consistency of terms, because in this other section of the bill, where we talk about the Mana Whakahono a Rohe, that particular clause’s amendment talks about iwi being able to participate at the table. Yet when it comes to the EEZ policy statements, it appears in the Minister’s own bill that all we need to do is notify iwi. Maybe he can clarify whether I am misreading that iwi have a much higher role to aid and abet the Minister to make sure that there are not any further breaches, as raised in his own departmental report, to ensure that historic claims are not further breached under this clause. So that was my first question to the Minister.

I also wanted to note that of the nine submitters under this particular section in Part 5, including environmental NGOs and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu—again, concerns were raised about the discretionary powers of the Minister to establish a process to develop these policy statements. I guess they were raising their concerns in terms of ensuring that iwi authorities’ views, particularly, were catered for in the process that the Minister is obviously going to adopt. So the question I again will put to the Minister is what guarantees—when I look at the clauses in this particular section we are talking about notification, but in other parts of the bill in terms of the Mana Whakahono a Rohe there is a much more active engagement at the planning stage with iwi. It does not seem to be the same in this particular section, unless I am missing it somewhere in this particular part. I really would want some guarantees from the Minister that iwi rights and interests in terms of their fishing rights will not be impacted adversely through this part of the bill. Kia ora, Minister.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I just want to go straight to a clause in Part 5, and that is clause 217. It may be one of those finicky ones in the legislation. It goes to new subpart 4, “Decommissioning plans”, and the submission of decommissioning plans for, I guess, oil rigs, petroleum—I will read it out. “The owner or operator of an offshore installation used in connection with petroleum production, or a structure, submarine pipeline, or submarine cable associated with such an installation”—and then the word “may” pops up. I am wondering whether that is meant to mean “must”, because “may” is optional, and “must” is not. I am wondering whether that is just a small thing within the piece of legislation—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What section number?

KRIS FAAFOI: It is clause 217, new section 100A, for the Minister. It says the owner or operator “may submit a decommissioning plan to the Environmental Protection Authority for acceptance.”, and then it goes, in the next line, “The decommissioning plan must—”. So it sets out in pretty clear terms what the plan must have, but it says anyone who owns or operates an offshore installation “may” submit a plan for the decommissioning. I know that the decommissioning is mentioned earlier on in the section, but it just kind of sticks out a little bit that you are asking someone to do something and saying “may”, and whether that might mean “must”.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: No.

KRIS FAAFOI: If it is not, if it is “may”, then is it optional? If it is not optional and it is meant to be that you have got to do it, then I would suggest that that is changed to “must”. I am just wondering whether the officials might be able to answer that, or the Minister, because you are very prescriptive about what “must” be done in the decommissioning plan. It says you have got to—there are amendments to decommissioning plans, requirements for public consultation for a decommissioning plan, but if it is optional to do that, you do not need to do that. I think I have made my point, so if it is meant to be done, I will suggest that change to a “must”.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I want to talk a little more on new subpart 4 of new Part 3A, but not on the “must” or “may” point that has already been mentioned—except to say, in passing, that if members look at the previous new section 100A, which was struck out at the Local Government and Environment Committee and replaced by the new section that the member Kris Faafoi has just been referring to, it does say “owner must” submit a decommissioning plan, actually. That was struck out. I do not know whether that was a conscious and deliberate decision of the select committee, but it actually said, in that previous section, as well, that “The EPA may, by written notice, require the owner of an offshore installation to prepare a decommissioning plan.” I presume that that is when the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has made the decision that this operation should no longer carry on. But, either way, what we have as a revision has quite a different onus of responsibility.

As I said, that is not the point that I wanted to make in my contribution, though. Whether by “may” or “must”, there are a number of requirements that the Environmental Protection Authority is putting on to owners or operators of the offshore installation that is being proposed for decommissioning. So they have to identify the structures, fully describe how they are going to be decommissioned, and identify changes from the accepted decommissioning plan if they are doing a new one. They have to include other information required by the regulations. There is quite a lot of responsibility on the owner or operator to do all of these things, and my question to Minister Smith is pretty simple: what if they do not? I cannot find it anywhere in Part 5 or in any other part. I have looked right through to the schedules, and I am pretty sure that I have not missed it in any of the parts that we have been debating up till now, but there does not seem to be any comeback.

It seems to me that with such tiered layers of responsibility, all these things that the owner or operator has to do, there is not a tuppence ha’penny fine to them if they do not do it. Can they just say “Here is our decommissioning plan.”, and the EPA checks it and accepts it—“That is now your decommissioning plan.”—and then takes not a blind bit of notice of it? That seems illogical. I cannot imagine that that would be the case. I hope I have been unable to find the relevant section, rather than it having been omitted, but I think now is the opportunity to make sure that if we do have what are really important environmental protections in the decommissioning of an operation such as this, that if things go wrong—we know about things going wrong with oil spills and nobody knowing who is going to pay for it, so let us make sure that with this sort of decommissioning there is really clear responsibility in the legislation for who carries the can if things go wrong. If the decommissioning plan has been accepted and then not followed, who is monitoring it? Who is responsible for saying to the owner or operator: “That is not what you said in the plan, and the consequences of breaching the plan are x, y, and z.”? I would really appreciate it if the Minister could just take the opportunity to answer that question.

I have to say that we have heard a lot of opposition to parts of this bill, but I do want to commend the select committee and the Minister for the requirement for public consultation in new section 100D. A lot of the provisions in this legislation, as we have seen in resource management changes since 2009, have watered down the councils’ responsibility—territorial local authorities’ responsibility—to publicly notify consent applications. They have reduced the opportunity for members of the public to make a submission or to appeal through the normal Resource Management Act processes, and I have been exercising some caution against a number of provisions in this bill because of that very fact. It just carries on the trend of reducing public involvement. But here in new section 100D it is not just that this would be a good thing to do; it is actually a requirement for public consultation. This is a big deal. It could have really negative impacts, and I think that having the public involved and having their say is a really important thing. So if we can get the responsibility for monitoring and the liability if the decommissioning plan is not implemented clear, I would be really happy. Thank you.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I did pose a question to the Minister, Nick Smith, a relatively simple one, earlier during the debate. I guess without having to go over the details of that—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): That would be repetitive.

KRIS FAAFOI: That would be repetitive. But I think the difference between “must” and “may” and the obligation on someone who has operated an oil rig at sea—there is quite a big difference between “must” and “may” and responsibilities therefore. My colleague Ruth Dyson has outlined her concerns around what may happen as a result of a penalty if they do not meet obligations in a decommissioning plan that they may or may not have to adhere to.

We did also note that in an earlier draft of the legislation it was “must”. And if the Government has changed its mind for some reason to allow the owners and the operators of those plants that are being decommissioned to move to less of an obligation, then I think that is a fair enough question to ask and get a response from the Minister, especially when people from coastal communities will be very concerned if this kind of activity is happening off the coast of what they call home.

If there is an onus on those companies, or those operators, to put forward a plan to say that “If things were to go wrong, here is the plan, and this is how we’re going to decommission a plant in order for it to be done environmentally safely—to protect the coastline.”, then that is great. But if that is an option to them and that is a decision that this Government has taken and has done it in a motivated way, then I think that the Government should answer to that and answer to the community and to New Zealanders in terms of what the motivation is for the change of position. My understanding is that from the first draft there was an obligation that operators did have to do this. They did have to tell and publicly consult about how they were going to take and decommission their plant. As it reads now, and with a small change in words, that is now optional for them and there is absolutely no onus on them. It is optional to those operators as to whether they are going to do that.

If that is a motivated change of position from the Government, I think that is a fair enough question to ask and is worthy of a response from the Government. If it is not going to get a response from the Government, then I think it will have to answer to those communities as to why it has made this change of position and why those operators who are decommissioning a plant, and I am assuming it is a risky business and has the potential to go wrong—why they are taking this new position. I would ask the Minister, if this is a motivated change of position, to respond to why this is.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I am happy to give the member a quick explanation. What you need to recognise is that we have got a difference between offshore platforms that operated prior to the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) legislation being in place. Our Government is the first Government to actually provide a regulatory framework for those activities and the environmental impacts in the exclusive economic zone.

So the reason for the “may” is that if there is a new facility that has been installed, then it is required by law to include a decommissioning plan when it is consented. So the reason for the “may” is that if I have got a platform that has been installed as a part of the EEZ regime, there is not a need for them to prepare a decommissioning plan, because that was part of the application in getting set up.

And then the question—this is important, actually, and this is why I brought the bill before the House—is that there are jurisdictions in the world that have been caught with hundreds of millions of dollars of liabilities at the end of life, and a company has been able to exploit the oil and gas and then at the end of it leave an abandoned platform.

What I am able to reassure the member is that with the regulation-making power that is provided in this section, there is the power for us to be able to require those platforms that do not have decommissioning plans to require them, to meet those requirements, and that is why the member should be satisfied that the provision is appropriate.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Just to continue along that line then—I understand the point that the Minister for the Environment is making as to some companies that may already have obligations because they may fall under different regulations. My question is whether the law should be more specific, then, about those that are not in that category. My understanding is that companies that may enter into this kind of practice would quite happily go to court and answer the difference between “must” and “may” and could quite easily—if we are going to quibble over two words—put up quite a fight over whether it is actually obligated to submit a decommissioning plan if it thinks it can argue in a court of law that it need not. And my challenge is to ask whether we need to be more specific about those that may fall into that category, to, therefore, not leave the possibility open that someone may take advantage of the word “may” instead of “must”.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I am speaking again to Part 5 and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act and the changes to that. The Green Party, like others, shares concerns about the provisions in this, particularly in new section 53 about the Minister appointing boards of inquiry for publicly notified section 20 activities.

While the Minister has explained that there is a desire to make this similar to the Resource Management Act, there is a huge possibility of there being quite a politicisation of the process here, with the Minister both appointing the board of inquiry, setting the terms of reference—though the select committee did change this slightly to require that the terms of reference be only in relation to administrative matters, rather than generally. But there is still a problem there because if the terms of reference are to relate to administrative matters, potentially they can limit and constrain the budget for the board of inquiry, which would then limit its ability to truly inquire into the environmental effects and ways of avoiding, remedying, and mitigating those.

Because there is no ability to appeal the import of inquiry decisions to the Environment Court, there is not a sufficient check and balance. Again, we come back to what the rationale is for these changes to the Act. The Minister explained in relation to policy statements for exclusive economic zone (EEZ) that it was his idea, but I would just like to remind him of what the Ministry for the Environment said in the regulatory impact statement. It said that one of the problems that new section 37A, in relation to these policy statements, was drafted to address: “The mining industry and allied business interest groups have also expressed concern that there is not national direction on a number of matters relevant to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act, in particular, there are concerns that the intent of the requirement to favour caution as currently drafted is not sufficiently clear and is leading decision-makers, applicants and submitters to focus inappropriately on inadequacies in information rather than on the scale and significance of the effects of the activity.” And, of course, it was that precautionary principle in section 61(2) that led to those two seabed mining applications being declined. So there is concern around the politicisation of boards of inquiry by those being appointed by the Minister.

There is also concern that this part of the bill replaces sections 35 to 58 of the principal EEZ Act with a range of new sections. One of those new sections is new section 46, in clause 188, about non-notified activities. I ask the Minister whether he could expand on what sorts of activities are going to not be notified, because in the principal Act, in section 45, there is a mandatory requirement—because it uses the word “must”—that when the Environmental Protection Authority is satisfied that an application for a marine consent is complete it must give public notice of the application. That is because of the important principle that our oceans are a common property resource. They are there for all of us and they are being managed on behalf of all of us. It is not like private land. So that is why in the principal Act there is this emphasis on public notification so that the public can get involved in these critical decisions, particularly when they are for things like seabed mining. As we saw with Trans-Tasman Resources and Chatham Rock Phosphate there was huge public interest and involvement in those activities. Yet this new section 46 is talking about non-notified activities. Does the Minister intend, through one of his policy statements or through regulation, to provide much more guidance on what constitutes a non-notified activity, and, again where the public is being shut out of the ability to actually have a say on what happens in our oceans?

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): It is a pleasure to rise and take a call on Part 5 of the bill. In doing so, I particularly want to examine a couple of points that are in new sections 37A and 37B, in clause 188, and also, a bit later on, to make some further points drawing off comments by colleagues Kris Faafoi and Eugenie Sage on boards of inquiry in new section 53, by reference to a number of submissions that have come in in this area.

It is worth noting that looking through the submissions—and I am thinking particularly about submissions that were received from the Resource Management Law Association, which I will comment on later, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, and a number of environmental NGOs—the consistent theme that has come through in this part matches that which has come through in other parts of the bill. And that is, a real concern that, while people support there being greater direction in terms of the setting of environmental policy, that needs to be very carefully considered alongside the centralisation of power in a Minister. New Zealand has got a history in this area, and people, I think, are rightly alert to the problems that can arise from that.

Let us start with new sections 37A and 37B, which, in my view and in the view of a number of the submitters, give pretty sweeping powers to the Minister in the establishment of an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) policy statement. Let us just look at a couple of the sections. The bit that really concerns me, if we turn to new section 37B(b), which says “establish a process that the Minister considers gives the public, iwi authorities, regional councils, and persons whose existing interests are likely to be affected adequate time and opportunity to comment on the subject matter of the proposed statement.”—so, in other words, we are giving a lot of power to the Minister to determine the consultation process.

One thing that I thought was interesting in the departmental notes around this section is it notes that the provisions that we are putting in here in respect of consultation differ markedly from the provisions that we see across the rest of the Resource Management Act infrastructure. Of course, one of the things that we have heard from the Minister and the Government, time and time again from the chair, is that one of the goals of this whole exercise is to align legislation with what is in the Resource Management Act here. But in the departmental report it is noted that we are doing something that is quite different here.

One of the submissions I was particularly interested in came from the Resource Management Law Association, and I think it is important for the Committee to take account of that submission. These are the people who will have to deal with this legislation after it is passed. These are the lawyers, the judges, the resource management professionals, the planners, the consultants who will administer this legislation, and they have deep concerns about what is being proposed in new sections 37A and 37B. If I can just refer to the association’s submission, it notes a particular concern that there is no requirement for a hearing to be held on any of the comments made to the Minister on a proposed EEZ policy statement nor any rights of appeal against the Minister’s ultimate decision.

It could be that this House believes that the current Minister is a man of cool disposition, and calm and clearheaded—that could be the view of this House—when we hand these powers over to him. That could be the view of this House. What if in the future we did not have such a Minister, and we had someone who was given to making impulsive decisions, to not consulting, and that kind of thing? If we are handing these powers over with very little to tie that Minister down to good public consultation, then I think that gives real and justified concerns to the community who will actually have to deal with this bill, and that is what is pointed out by the Resource Management Law Association.

Another interesting point that it touches on, and this builds off a point made by colleague Kris Faafoi—if we turn to new section 53, in clause 188, in respect of boards of inquiry—the bill says that the Minister may appoint a current, former, or retired Environment Court judge or retired High Court judge to chair the board of inquiry. The Resource Management Law Association makes, I think, quite a valid point—and it would be good to hear from the Minister on this—that, given the seriousness of what we are looking at here, the setting up of plans that will govern every consent that is heard, there would actually be significant value in having someone with real judicial experience chairing that board of inquiry, particularly given the cross-examination requirements that we will want to see borne out in that process. That was raised during the submissions. The select committee has not chosen to do that. It is still a “may” in terms of appointing a judge, and I think it would be good to hear about that from the Minister too. Thank you.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 282 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to Part 5 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 61

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2.

Noes 60

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 284 in the name of Eugenie Sage to Part 5 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Noes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendments not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 5 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 61

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2.

Noes 60

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Part 5 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 1

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 282 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to schedule 1 be agreed to.

Eugenie Sage: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Are we going to get any chance to debate schedule 1?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Schedule 1 was part of Part 1 and was debated as part of that debate. I believe someone has called for a party vote?

Kris Faafoi: That is correct.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 61

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2.

Noes 60

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendments agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 266 in the name of David Seymour to schedule 1 is out of order because it is contingent on an amendment to Part 1 that is already negatived. The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 285 in the name of Denis O’Rourke to schedule 1 is out of order because it is contingent on an amendment to Part 1 that is already negatived.

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 61

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2.

Noes 60

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 282 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to schedule 2 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 61

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2.

Noes 60

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 61

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2.

Noes 60

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 3

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 61

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2.

Noes 60

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedule 4

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 4 be agreed to.

Ayes 61

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2.

Noes 60

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Schedule 5

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 5 be agreed to.

Ayes 61

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2.

Noes 60

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Schedule 6

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 6 be agreed to.

Ayes 61

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2.

Noes 60

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Schedule 7

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 7 be agreed to.

Ayes 61

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2.

Noes 60

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

Schedule 7A

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 7A be agreed to.

Ayes 61

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2.

Noes 60

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Schedule 7A agreed to.

Schedule 8

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 8 be agreed to.

Ayes 61

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2.

Noes 60

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Schedule 8 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Clauses 1 and 2 are the title and commencement clauses of this bill—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! I just got into a bit of a roll and forgot myself. The question now is that clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

KRIS FAAFOI: Important pieces of legislation like this do not have an opportunity to be redrafted and changed so often. I believe this is the first real amendment of this legislation in at least 25 years. They are big changes, but they are changes that, on this side of the House, we, in large part, do not agree with. We believe that the opportunity has been missed, not only by the Minister who is responsible for this piece of legislation but by the Government, to take and make some meaningful change to this piece of legislation to address some very important issues in and around our environment and, importantly, in and around building some houses for New Zealand.

The Government has been quick to blame everyone else but itself when it comes to its complete and utter lack of movement around housing. But I think we need to look at the lost opportunity with this Resource Legislation Amendment Bill. One can only come to the conclusion that this has been a lost opportunity for us to seriously do something about planning rules, to make sure that the houses that New Zealand seriously needs are provided. Nick Smith has to take the blame for that. The Government has to take the blame for that. As we get closer to election day, we will find out that the Māori Party will take a lot of blame for that too.

To stitch up this deal—a wafer-thin majority for a piece of legislation that should have had broad-spectrum appeal across this House, to make sure it got there to do the important things that this Government needs to do to address the housing shortage—the Government went for a dirty old last-minute deal with the Māori Party to get it through with a one-vote majority. And it made some controversial changes that I think, in the end, the Māori Party will regret making because, as was exposed in the words of the Minister himself last night around the definition of the word “crop”, the Māori Party has signed up to something thinking it has got a golden egg and it has got nothing but rotten eggs. That is the reality of this piece of legislation for the Māori Party.

I am looking forward to the campaign, and I bet my Māori colleagues on this side of the House are looking forward to the campaign, when they can take it to their communities that the Māori Party sold itself short to have a short-term win that will end up being a loss for them in the long run. So those members have done the deal and the Government has done the deal to make sure that this piece of legislation can get a slim majority in this House, but let us be fair: it does not achieve anywhere near what this piece of legislation should have achieved when it gets reviewed after 25 years of being enacted.

I remember when Nick Smith, about 6 years ago, stood next to a pile of planning documents—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: 2 years ago.

KRIS FAAFOI: 2 years ago. Oh, it feels like such a long time. It has been 8 long years—ha, ha! He stood there and said he was going to do something about the Resource Management Act. Well, I guess he can claim that he has done something, but he has not done anything significant or of substance in this piece of legislation. What we are looking for is leadership from this Government to do something that will really help the families of New Zealand in one of the biggest issues that they have now, and that is being in a home, being able to afford a home, being able to have a home. This piece of legislation, sadly for the public, does nothing to be able to advance that.

That is a massively lost opportunity and, 6 months out from an election, I think the Government needs to be held accountable, and it will be, because if MPs like me are getting the influx of emails into their in-box from people who are saying “In the past, I’ve voted National, but because they’ve done this deal and they’ve pushed this legislation through in the manner that they have”—because it promised something significant, but it has not delivered—this Government is going to pay the electoral price for that. So it is going to be very interesting to see what happens over the next 5¾ months and to see how the Government will be held accountable for its lack of action in the biggest issue as we go into this election—that is, housing.

We were hoping for something much more significant in this piece of legislation to deal with the housing crisis in New Zealand. Nick Smith not only is the Minister for Building and Construction but is also the Minister responsible for this bill. He had a once-in-a-25-year chance to do something significant, but he let it slip through his fingers, and people know that. People know that he could have got broad-spectrum support around this House if he had given each party a bit of something. But he chose just the one party, and that party has been sold a pup. I suggest the Māori Party rings Fair Go, because exactly what has happened is that it has been ripped off.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Mr Chair.

Eugenie Sage: Mr Chair.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Go on.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Make your minds up.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Ha, ha! Thank you, the Hon Ruth Dyson. It is incredibly disappointing. I do not think I have heard one contribution from any Government member other than the Minister. I think that is just symbolic of the whole process for this bill, which—

Hon Members: Shambolic.

EUGENIE SAGE: “Shambolic”, New Zealand First is saying, and I certainly agree that that is a term I would also use, because the select committee process was dominated by the Minister and, obviously, either backbench members have been cowed into not speaking or they are totally uninterested. I think the fact that this major bill, which amends five different pieces of legislation, including the Resource Management Act (RMA), the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environment Effects) Act, the Conservation Act, the Reserves Act, and the Public Works Act, is going through this Parliament with a majority of one vote, and yet the principal Act—the RMA—went through this Parliament unanimously in 1991. It is shameful that the Minister has pursued such a divisive course with this bill, has totally failed to engage with Opposition parties on the concerns that we had and the suggestions that we made for changes, and has just simply steamrollered ahead with a whole lot of changes that I suspect the Property Council and its members will be very happy with because of the very permissive provisions around subdivision—which meet its interests—and the provisions that undermine the public’s right to actually have a say and to help contribute to well-informed decisions.

The Government is passing this legislation by one vote, and the risk there—and the very palpable risk—is that the new Government, come September, will pass legislation that completely overturns this bill. So we have flip-flop lawmaking because the Minister—even though he talks all the time about collaborative processes—fails to engage in any collaboration around our major environmental laws. Schedule 1 of this bill has a whole prescriptive process around how councils should engage in collaborative processes, yet the Minister does not seem to have read that and has certainly not applied it to one section of the development of this bill—just completely steamrollering it through.

I endorse the comments of Kris Faafoi in terms of the Māori Party. It has given the Minister and the Government the numbers they need to pass this legislation, and yet it has failed to recognise that, other than through the iwi participation arrangements, the opportunities for iwi and hapū to participate in normal resource consent decisions have been shafted by this bill. The Māori Party has failed to recognise that Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 281 in Marama Fox’s name deals only with crops and that that does not cover ryegrass and, potentially, it may not cover trees, on which Scion has been experimenting, with the genetic modification of pine trees. There is no assurance that councils will be able to continue to prevent areas having GMOs established in them through things like ryegrass and tree crops, because the bill has got a requirement around constraining the Minister’s regulation-making powers only around GMO crops, not around GMO pasture or GMO trees. So the Māori Party has given up a huge amount and is claiming that its SOP justifies that.

Minister, this legislation will be unwound. It is a bad bill that goes to the heart of the principles of the RMA and the EEZ legislation. We are campaigning in the next few months to get into Government and to ensure that we have a major review of the RMA, so that we continue with the principles that are there in Part 2 but that we do not have all this undermining of good decision-making by cutting out the public and increasing the Minister’s powers to dictate to councils and to override local democracy.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I want to talk about clauses 1 and 2 because they are not very accurate, when you look at the title, for example—the “Resource Legislation Amendment Bill”. It should be called the “Resource Legislation (Compromise-ation) Bill”, because that would actually be a more descriptive term for what the bill does and does not do.

It does compromise the Resource Management Act in so many different ways, and New Zealand First has especially sought to emphasise the iwi participation agreements—and that includes the Māori terminology that has been inserted in the bill as well in relation to that—and all the related provisions of that. These permeate the entire bill, from one end to the other, and if you look at my amendment, it is a long list of the many and various ways in which the iwi participation agreements and all those related provisions actually do permeate the bill. We in New Zealand First say this. We say that that compromises the entire bill because it means that one section of the community is given rights that other sections of the community do not have, and the presumption is made that the Treaty of Waitangi provides a rationale for doing that.

But the truth is that the Treaty of Waitangi gives no such right to Māori iwi to have those special rights—none at all, none whatsoever. So where this came from I do not know, except I do know one thing. I know why it is in the bill. It is not necessarily because the Government itself wanted it; it is because the only way it could get this legislation through Parliament is by securing two votes from the Māori Party, and the Government was willing to compromise the whole bill in order to get what it wanted through. So this is a dirty little deal done behind closed doors in that way so the Government could get what it wanted and it has been willing to accommodate all these rather ridiculous totally unnecessary provisions that the Māori Party has sought, which compromise the entire bill.

It is not only that. Far from making the Resource Management Act (RMA) less complicated and creating less bureaucracy, those provisions create an entire new level of bureaucracy that was not in the Act before. So the Minister’s claims that this is fighting bureaucracy are totally vacuous. Not only that, it creates more expense. We will not know for some time what those greater expenses will be, but there is no doubt in my mind that it will cost a lot more. So the real effects of those iwi participation agreements will not be known for some time, but the New Zealand public will see it time after time as they look at plan changes, as they look at consents that go through the system. They will see it and they will react and I can tell the Minister right now—and the Government—that it will not be a positive reaction.

The fundamental problem that the Government has got with this bill is that it has failed to take the public with it. You only need to look at the magnitude of the objections that came in during the consultation process. Of all of those submissions that came in, by far the overwhelming number of them were against the provisions in this bill.

In my last minute, can I go on to a couple of other things. The powers of the Minister to override plans—regional and district plans—are much greater than the Minister claimed. He claimed “No, don’t worry. It’s very limited.” But, in fact, when you look at what is there, the word “amendment” is used in one section, which shows unmistakably that the Minister can require amendment of plans, not just take things out. That sort of executive power is unnecessary, it should not be in the bill, and there is a lot of objection to that amongst the members of the public.

Finally, on GE crops I agree with what other members have said about that. The Māori Party has simply been hoodwinked over that. It thinks it has achieved something by the amendment that Marama Fox put forward. The truth is she achieved nothing, did not even define the term “crops” properly, and that is another way in which the whole bill has been compromised. This bill will have to be repealed.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I am trying to recall the last time it was that this Parliament had voting together the ACT Party, the Green Party—I think I have just about ruled out pretty well every opportunity that has happened before—United Future, New Zealand First, Labour. Is that all of them? And on the other side there are National and the Māori Party. You would think that with something as important to New Zealand, and as widely supported across the political spectrum over the last three decades, the Minister would think “We’ve got a problem here.” But the Minister is content, having done a sleazy little deal with the Māori Party—and that is the only way you can describe it—to get this legislation progressed by just one vote, the narrowest of possible majorities.

I thought that vote might go last night when Marama Fox of the Māori Party described what “crops” meant in her deal with the Minister. Unfortunately, the Minister described to the Committee what “crops” meant in the bill, and they were really different definitions. The Minister said “crops” is about vegetables or cereals or fruit, and Marama Fox said “No, no, ‘crops’ is that, but also about ryegrass and pine trees.” One of them is wrong, and, actually normally I would say it will be Marama Fox because she is new to the House and she is not in charge of the legislation but, actually, given the track record, I bet it is the Minister who is wrong. But that will be the first case that is taken to court.

The Minister said that this is reducing bureaucracy and reducing litigation. The first case to be heard in court will be over the definition of “crop”, and Pure Hawke’s Bay, which has been assured by Marama Fox that it includes ryegrass and trees—I think she will be calling them as a witness. They were party to the process of discussion. They were party—not directly but involved in the discussions to give quality advice—and they have been let down. I think Marama Fox will be pretty grumpy—and I have seen her being quite grumpy in this House. Be afraid, is all that I could say to the National Government, because you should not trick members whose votes you are relying on. It is just wrong.

The National members are wrong about another thing. They are saying that this flawed bill will fix the housing crisis in Auckland. They say that is the point of it. Nick Smith is often up on his feet, quoting how many houses are being built now compared with how few houses were being built during the time of the Labour-led Government. He is wrong. Let me give you a couple of examples, Minister. In 2004—the Resource Management Act (RMA) was going then—the number of building consents issued over the whole country was 31,423. The number issued last year was 29,970. Which of those two figures is bigger? That is correct—the 2004 figure. In Auckland, where we know we have got the worst housing crisis in the country but it certainly has spread to other places, in 2004—again, when the RMA was operating—12,115 consents were granted; last year 9,930. Which of those two figures is larger? Correct—it is 2004.

So the idea that these changes will fix anything is wrong, and the idea that the RMA in these areas is causing the problem is just wrong as well. The figures show that the Minister has made a big mistake. That is what the select committee heard too. That is what the select committee heard, day after day after day. It was not from fringe, tree-hugging groups, not from groups that anyone in this House would say were extreme, but from a wide variety of organisations that made submissions, including Local Government New Zealand, including regional and district councils—Mr Chairman? [Bell rung]—including developers such as Fulton Hogan, including Fonterra. Are these fringe groups? They included airport owners, the New Zealand Law Society, and every environmental non-government organisation. They all opposed this legislation. It is a bill that it is going to make it harder to get things done, not easier.

The Māori Party had an opportunity, using their votes, which cause the majority in this legislation, to make a difference—to make a difference not just for Māori but to make a difference for New Zealand. Huge power they were wielding with the Minister and instead they crumbled for a con. I would be pretty upset if I were them and I hope they are, because they do not deserve to be treated like that.

The point that I have been making throughout other parts of the Committee stage of this legislation is that this carries on the trend of the last 9 long years of a National-led Government of reducing a citizen’s right to have a say in what happens in their area. I have had a recent example in my own electorate where an asbestos dump has been allowed in a residential area.

Can you imagine it? Just a street—you drive up it, there are houses on either side, and there is now an asbestos dump there. The independent hearings panel that approved this did so on a non-notified consent application and specifically referenced the 2009 resource management changes, and said the onus on councils had been completely tipped on its head, that it was now no longer expected that councils notified; it now was expected that councils did not notify, unless there was a really, really strong reason for them to do so. Having an asbestos dump in your street was not a good enough reason.

That is what the Minister for the Environment and his National Government colleagues, backed by the Māori Party, have caused in New Zealand, when previously we had effects-based legislation, which of course could always be improved but it was widely supported and understood in this Parliament and outside. Water conservation orders have been undermined. The Minister has significant rule-making powers, powers of appointments to the Environmental Protection Authority—extensive powers for it, now, which it has not had in the past.

I just want to make one final comment, and it is not on the frustration that most people—bar one—in this House feel about this poorly thought-through, shonkily dealt with legislation, and that is that I find the commencement stages to be of real interest. No longer do we have an Act that comes into force on X date; we have an Act that comes into force on three separate dates. That is in “Commencement”, under clause 2.

As if this legislation is not confusing enough—nearly the entire bill has been rewritten by the Local Government and Environment Committee, bits have been added, and a huge number of amendments have been discussed during the last sessions of debate. So “Subpart 2 of Part 1 … and Part 4 … come into force on the day that is 6 months after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent.”—that is good—“Subpart 3 of Part 1 … comes into force on the day that is 5 years after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent.”, and “The rest of this Act comes into force on the day after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent.”

As if the deal was not bad enough; as if the flawed logic to this bill was not bad enough; and as if the process, which has been pretty mangled in this House, was not bad enough, we have three separate dates in the commencement clause of this legislation, which is just going to layer on confusion and frustration.

You had an opportunity, Minister, to really make a difference in this space, to really improve the Resource Management Act, to get all the experts together, get their identification of problems agreed, get their solutions agreed, and this Parliament would have gone forward with some willingness. It does not matter which political stripe the Minister is wearing; if we did a proper process and got agreement, we could really have made a positive difference. Instead, what we have done is we have seen a regression in our progressive resource management legislation, added an opportunity for resource management lawyers to make big money, and denied the public their right to have a say into what happens in their community.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): I am happy to take a call on clauses 1 and 2 of the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill. Can I start with sharing a couple of documents that I received today from the Guardians of the Aquifer from Hawke’s Bay. One was dated 15 November, raising an issue with Minister for Māori Development, Te Ururoa Flavell, around drinking water versus drilling for oil and gas. In this letter it highlights where the Māori Party’s position was, back in November, on new section 360D, inserted by clause 105. Clearly, for many people around this country, the broad-based powers of the Minister have been a very contentious issue raised by many submitters. In this letter it urged the Māori Party to vote against 360D. In fact, in this letter it acknowledged that the co-leader of the Māori Party Marama Fox actually helped write its submission, which was an interesting piece of background.

But if I take the Committee back to the election in 2014, another letter was written to the Minister for Māori Development, Te Ururoa Flavell, raising the very important issue of fracking in the Hawke’s Bay and, probably, around the country. In this letter they ran a questionnaire that asked members of Parliament to answer two questions that the Guardians of the Aquifer asked. The questions went like this: “Certain locations and regions [in New Zealand] should be excluded from hydraulic fracturing. Among them are catchment areas for drinking water. Additionally, tectonically stressed areas, or regions with a combination of artesian ground water and migration pathways (faults), should be excluded from hydraulic fracturing operations.” There were two questions that members or political candidates were asked to answer. The first question is: do you agree with this statement?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am just going to ask the member to, fairly soon, relate this letter and the discussion around it to the detail of the bill.

MEKA WHAITIRI: Yes, I will, Mr Chair, and—

Hon David Bennett: Come on. Sit down if you can’t do it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Who said that?

Hon Ruth Dyson: David Bennett.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I probably should have stood up in order to speak rather than advising the member like that, but I do not need advice from David Bennett of that type.

MEKA WHAITIRI: Thank you, Mr Chair. So the two questions: do we agree with this statement or disagree? It was circled “I agree”. Will your party support such exclusion zones? Again, “Yes” was ticked. That was signed by Māori Party co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell. The point I am making is that if it was not for the Māori Party, this bill would not be making its passage through this House. I have just shared with the Committee two documents where both leaders of the Māori Party have come up swinging really strongly for communities like the Guardians of the Aquifer in the Hawke’s Bay.

Nobody wanted this bill, and it was only the two votes of the Māori Party that ensured that Nick Smith, the Minister for the Environment, got this bill through the House. It is clear that a secret deal has been done with this Government outside the select committee. We have been debating this bill quite rigorously for the last two evenings, and I thought we would have had a bit more around what has been compromised in this bill.

After months of sustained pressure from Opposition parties and high-profile campaigns run out of Hawke’s Bay, the Māori Party has proposed amendments that exclude genetically modified organisms. But when we look down and examine the Māori Party, particularly the member’s own Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 281, it was raised that her understanding of what crops covered and what we got from the Minister himself were two different things.

There is this promise being made by the Māori Party members to all people, particularly those in the Hawke’s Bay, around what they have gained not only for iwi around the country but, clearly, for people passionate about the environment. What has been exposed in this House through the debating of this bill is that they have walked away empty-handed.

The other letter—and I will not go into it, but I have got it here and am happy to table it in the House—is the statement from the Māori Party that it was the iwi leaders group that was also instrumental in providing, was very instrumental in informing the Māori Party. So if we peel this back, the Māori Party has not only identified its own fault in the SOP around making it really clear what crops were for our organic growers in the Hawke’s Bay and in Northland and in Auckland, but also thrown the iwi leaders group chairs under the bus by naming them as being very, very close to the Māori Party and coming up with that SOP. We also, unfortunately, heard that Pure Hawke’s Bay, which is a reputable organic growers group in Hawke’s Bay, also was thrown under the bus by the Māori Party when Marama Fox last night indicated that it was its wording that went into her SOP. We all know that we all have relationships with different people—they help inform us as politicians. But one thing we do not do is we never throw those sources or those relationships under the bus.

It is going to be an interesting time. As this bill passes its final reading in the House, the Māori Party members will be held accountable—they will be held accountable—for their support of an absolutely flawed bill. They will be held accountable for the actions that they have taken. We look forward, when we go on the campaign trail, to them defending their position in supporting this bill, and the so-called gains, which we have uncovered are not gains at all. They have actually sold out. They have sold out organic growers in this country. They have sold out iwi Māori. They have sold out councillors. They have sold out developers. And they will be held accountable as we go on the campaign trail, which is coming up shortly.

This is a terrible bill. All the way through we have made it really clear on principle and on parts of the bill that do not protect our environment, as we all understand the Resource Management Act was originally made for. We have now turned the tide. We have gone from protecting our environment and into economic development, at all costs. There are no checks and balances in this bill. I do not commend this bill to the House. It is going to be a very strong issue as we go into the campaign this year. Nick Smith and the National Government, along with the Māori Party, will have to stand and be accountable for these actions.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 61

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2.

Noes 60

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 282 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 2 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 61

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2.

Noes 60

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendment agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 61

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2.

Noes 60

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 14 March.

Part 2 Emergencies, fire control, industry brigades, water supply, and evacuation schemes (continued)

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): When we were last considering this bill, we were debating Part 2. Clayton Mitchell had the call, and he has 3 minutes and 12 seconds remaining.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I will take those 3 minutes and 12 seconds remaining, and I will probably take a few more as this bill progresses. It is interesting that this bill is being read in the Committee tonight. That is two appalling bills being read on the same night, being pushed through at breakneck speed, and they are going to have some dire consequences as we move forward.

When we were last speaking to this bill I was speaking on Part 2, specifically on clause 58, to do with firebreaks on forestry land. When I read out the point in relation to that, it has got some pretty good stuff here, except for the fact that it has been completely removed, taken out of the bill. This is related specifically to firebreaks on landholder of forestry land.

In clause 58(1), (2), and (3) they have virtually rewritten this, in relation to the preparation and management of firebreaks on land, but taken out the requirement for forestry land to be demanded, to ensure that they have a clear, free area. I find that absolutely fascinating that when you look at the current situations around funding by the Department of Conservation, specifically going into the management of firebreaks, in the last 12 months we have seen a 93 percent reduction—a 93 percent reduction—from $13 million, down to just $700,000, dealing specifically with fire management on conservation land.

That is almost in preparation for this bill, knowing that the Department of Conservation no longer has to put that money into those firebreaks, which is going to have some serious effects in the short to medium term, specifically on conservation land, if it is not put back in there. The whole idea of having a Fire Service is that it can determine the fact that those conservation lands are adequately looked after, to make sure that is going to be upheld, and to have that taken away, under clause 58, just defies belief.

On a positive note, I see in Part 2, clause 45, the “Power to use water for any emergency and training purposes”. That is a very, very good amendment and it certainly ties in nicely with Kris Faafoi’s ability to not have to get a road closure, and to ensure you have got to pay the money to put out the cones to do a fire test. Of course, emergencies do not happen like that in the real world, and you have just got to be prepared, at a minute’s notice, to ensure that. But to enable the Fire Service to be able to utilise water for training purposes or any other purpose required, even if it is not a specific fire, does actually make some sense. We would certainly support that aspect of it. But when we get down to the firebreaks on forestry land being removed, by clause 58, and the effect that that is already having in relation to—[Bell rung] Is that my time up already?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): It has gone. The member had a short call, remember.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: I just looked up at the clock and I thought—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Never rely on the clock. I am the sole judge of time.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: Roger. Righty-o. I am sure there are some people who are ready to—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Would the member like another call?

CLAYTON MITCHELL: Yes, Mr Chair. I am still going. I thought that was pretty obvious, but anyway, we will take that—carpe diem, seize the day, on a call. It does not happen very often.

To wrap things up here—certainly, clause 58, around that, and seeing the effects that that is already having on our conservation land is of serious concern. As we move through the bill, into Part 3, I will take another call—probably a number of calls. The funding model is something we have some serious concerns about.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): No, no.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: I am just wrapping up, and giving my colleagues some time to rise to their feet. Thank you.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I know you had an option, Mr Chair, so thank you very much. Can I, first of all, begin by acknowledging the men and women of our Fire Service. Some of them will be busy tonight, and were busy last night, dealing with weather-related call outs. I will make a point later on in my contribution as to why I think this Parliament needs to seriously consider Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 263, the SOP in my name on this piece of legislation, because of what might be happening right now, especially in some of the flooded urban areas where the silting-up of fire hydrants may be a real issue.

I do have an SOP for this part, Part 2. I just want to give some plain English context to it. Every 5 years, I understand—and I acknowledge Carl Mills from the Plimmerton Volunteer Fire Brigade—the fire brigades in my area have to go and check the fire hydrants in the area. My understanding is that they have not done that for the last, at least, 10 years because of issues around traffic management plans, and the issues and the red tape in and around that. It is, essentially, too hard for them to be able to do it, especially for volunteer fire brigades. The reality of that is that—and I do not like to say this; it alarms me—when fire brigades turn up to an issue where they may need the fire hydrant, there is a degree of luck involved as to whether or not the fire hydrant is actually usable.

That is not just in my area, it may be in and around other parts of the country where the situation is the same because the local fire brigades have chosen not to check fire hydrants because of the onus on them of traffic management plans. So if they ask to check a fire hydrant, they will rock up and for every hydrant they check they are expected to have a traffic management plan to make sure that they are safe in and around that fire hydrant. That task is onerous and I think I have spoken about this already in some contributions to the bill, and I think it needs to be sorted out for a number of reasons.

The first reason is public safety, because it is a real issue. There was a call-out, I understand, in mid-February this year in my electorate where there was potentially a fire and the fire brigade turned up to a potential fire call-out at a motel. They went to the fire hydrant to be able to use it, to be able to plug the hose in, and it was silted up because there had been flooding in that area some time before. So that fire hydrant was unusable. If the building had been on fire they would have had to go to another fire hydrant 300 metres down the road, and if it was not silted up like the fire hydrant that they checked first then they would be able to use it. But there is pure luck involved in that, because if it was flooded and silted up then they could not use that, too.

I would not want to be the owner of a property where the fire brigade could not use the fire hydrant outside my property because it was silted up because the local fire brigade chose not to check it because of the impost on them of a traffic management plan. That is why I think this legislation needs to include this, because we need to have confidence that our fire brigades are going to be safe when they are checking those and that the fire hydrants actually work.

There is another issue that I want to raise with the Minister in the chair, Peter Dunne, around this. We expect those fire brigades to be out there working, and they are not checking those fire hydrants at the moment, and my question to the Minister in the chair is that if you will require traffic management plans of fire brigades, can I ask what your understanding of the situation is when police set up checkpoints. If our police are setting up checkpoints at the moment and are not requiring a traffic management plan, why is there a different standard for the police and another standard for our fire brigades? I think they are, essentially, doing the same thing. They are using the road for a purpose, it is not an emergency in this case, they are going to a site to set up potentially a drink-driving checkpoint, to test people on the roads, using that road, and I want to know what the onus on the police is around the traffic management in that area.

The Police and the Fire Service are two Crown entities that this Parliament goes out and asks to do certain duties to keep the public safe. If we are going to ask fire brigades to go out and check fire hydrants and carry out training on roads and require them to have a traffic management plan, is the same rule in place for our police? If not, why not? And do we have to standardise this for agencies or Crown entities like the Fire Service and like the Police? I think we may have a bit of a mismatch here.

My understanding is that if the police want to go and set up a checkpoint they do not have to have a traffic management plan. They make an assumption that what they are doing needs to be done, and they will go and do it. If the same standard is going to be asked of the police that we are requiring of our fire brigades when they are using the roads, not for emergencies but for training and testing purposes, I would suggest that the police, every time they set up for a checkpoint, have to go to the local council to get a traffic management plan. My assumption is that the police would not like to do that because if those were publicly notifiable you would know where they are. I would also expect that they would want to do things quite quickly and respond with some urgency, so therefore would not have a traffic management plan.

My question to the Minister is: is there a standard that can be met? If not, I think the SOP I have in my name, to put the onus in legislation for there to be a code of practice around traffic management and to give a degree of control to fire brigades when we are doing testing and training on the roads, needs to be there. If it is good enough for the police to go out there and do whatever they need to do without a traffic management plan because they know they have got some criteria to keep them safe, why is it not the same for the fire brigades?

It is my understanding since 2015 that water testing and training on roads was nationally prohibited by the New Zealand Fire Service if brigades did not have a traffic management plan. At the moment if you do not have a traffic management plan and you are in a fire brigade, you are not doing any testing or training on the roads. I think that has real safety implications. I go back to the issue of basically testing the fire hydrants. There is the expectation and, I understand, an obligation on our fire brigades to test those hydrants and check that they work.

If we as a House are ignoring the practical issue for fire brigades right now to make sure that they can do that work—if those hydrants are not working, and a fire brigade turns up to a fire and cannot use the hydrant in front of a house that is on fire, because there is an issue with it like it has been silted up or it is non-operational, and that brigade does not know that because it has not tested it in 5 or 10 years, then I do not think we are doing our job well enough. To say to leave it to the new entity to sort it out I do not think is enough. I think we need to put it within the legislation that there is a code of practice working with local authorities and working with the transport agency so that we have an understanding of what goes into whatever traffic management plan that we can assume that those fire brigades will adhere to and let them get on with it.

The real implications are that some fire hydrants around the country are probably not operational now because they cannot be tested. So the amendment, in the SOP that I put in my name here, looks to do that, to put the onus on the new entity to make sure that this issue is sorted out. To be fair, if we do not, then nothing could happen and the situation will carry on as it has. But I certainly do not want to be a member of Parliament who knows about this issue and then for an event to happen where a hydrant does not work and something happens that we do not want to happen.

So unless the Minister can assure me that this issue is close to being sorted out, I would hope that this Parliament could seriously consider putting an obligation on the new entity to make sure that this happens—to make sure when a fire truck turns up outside your house and wants to hook up to the hydrant, the hydrant works—because at the moment this Committee cannot guarantee that.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): While I was not a member of the Government Administration Committee, I speak, like most Kiwis, I guess, with some passion about the service, which is an amazing part of our community. It was mentioned by my colleague before, the fact that the Fire Service was fighting floods gives an indication of the scope of responsibility that they have in this country.

In regard to Part 2 the issue here of penalties, which are not inconsequential—imprisonment for up to 2 years or a fine not exceeding $300,000 if you do not adhere to some of the requirements around, effectively, getting permits for fires. A fire in the open air is prohibited unless you, effectively, get a permit and abide by the conditions of the permit, which are reasonable and understandable.

One thing I discovered over the last summer was fire pits. We are not so familiar with them in New Zealand; we tend to just have a barbecue, light a fire and throw all the wood on. But other places around the world have pits—they dig a hole to make a pit. I am not sure whether that still means that we will have to have a permit for those or not. It is a genuine question. I think with this level of fine here—someone on a rural property might dig a small pit and have a fire. Rightfully, in areas of, I guess, less rainfall, which is the top end of my electorate rather than the bottom, there are people who are scrutinising any possible smoke or fires right through summer. We are, I guess, upgrading the legislation but it will be interesting to hear the answer from the Minister on this.

The other issue I go to under “Restricted activities” in clause 52(2) states: “A person has notice that an activity in an area is restricted if the person knows or ought reasonably to know that the activity is restricted in that area.” The implication is that if you think it is not right to have a fire, then you should know about it and therefore you have no defence. I guess with social media and a whole lot of different methods of communication, the question has to be asked of the Minister: what do we consider reasonable notification? If they are to reasonably know, does that mean an ad in a local paper once a season, saying that you have got to get a permit before you have a fire or does that mean regular ads that you sometimes hear on the radio? If you get it wrong, you can be fined up to $300,000, and it is a bit scary for people. That is another question that perhaps the Minister might answer.

My experience, as I said, not being on the committee and not being a fire person, is that I have lit a lot of fires—a lot of very big fires. I worked in Australia. If you go to the racecourse at Caloundra, which is on the Sunshine Coast—indeed, I was on the first bulldozer to clear the first tree when we were clearing that whole area. In that process, we had a large number of fires and some of them got out of control. So I am acutely aware, while in a slightly different environment, of the possible dangers of fires that can get out of control and the potential costs involved. The upgrading through Part 2 of this bill is something that I understand but there are some technical questions that, as I say, I have put to the Minister.

I have moved on, into other parts of Subpart 2, clause 59. They have taken out the word “fire” from “fire brigades” and called them industry brigades. I am assuming that this does cover brigades or services at airports, or is that covered under the Civil Aviation Act? The reason that “fire” has been taken out is something that I do not quite understand. I guess we could say that in the normal scheme of things, brigades cover a whole range of things, from cats and trees to car accidents, and could rightfully be called community brigades—emergency brigades, perhaps more accurately.

The next issue, coming down to Subpart 3 and just skimming through the legislation, is the issue of water supply. Water is a very topical issue across the country at the moment. I skimmed through here and noticed that there are requirements for testing of the adequacy of firefighting supplies. They will test the volume and the pressure, but there is no reference to quality. Everywhere else in the country we are talking about water quality, whether it is coming in or going out. So I am wondering whether there are requirements. Is it just around basically the water that will come out of a pipe for fighting fires or is it the management of the water, post fire? Anything you spray on, obviously you often have to deal with contaminants. I cannot see here any extra provisions or new provisions in this legislation that deal with possible contaminated water that might flow from fires. Indeed, maybe the people on the select committee or the Minister could answer the question as to whether that was considered, and why it was rejected, because nothing I read here relates to water quality.

I just go back a step, to clause 63 and the issue of a code of practice being required for firefighting water supplies. As I read it, these have to be consulted on, so I guess the community will generally know where the water comes from, submitted to the Minister, published, and notified. Of course it does have to be presented to the House of Representatives, under section 41 of that Act. I am assuming that we may see many, many codes of practice—documents—presented to Parliament that outline how communities will get their water supply for their fire service. That is my reading of the legislation. It seems quite an onerous task for community fire services up and down the country, if that is indeed the case. In fact, it is going to be a bit onerous for the Clerk of the House to receive all these and to process them.

They are just some of the questions that I have relating to Part 2 of this bill. While they are seemingly technical issues, in the end every one of these provisions will have to be implemented by someone, at a cost. Someone will be involved in the development of these things. I hope that we are not placing an unreasonable burden on communities and on individuals in the communities to carry this out. I know that we are going to one service. I am not sure whether it will be the paid or unpaid part of the service that will be obliged to implement all the provisions that we are laying out here in Part 2. Maybe the Minister can take a call and clarify some of those things for the Committee. I will leave it at that.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Internal Affairs): I will take a call to deal with some of the issues that have been raised to date. My starting point is to just observe that this bill is, essentially, a permissive piece of legislation. It replaces an Act that is extraordinarily prescriptive and, therefore, very inflexible. As situations change under the current legislation, it is almost impossible to change actions unless one changes the legislation. So the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill has been crafted deliberately to be permissive—to enable the new board of Fire and Emergency New Zealand and Fire and Emergency New Zealand itself to respond more flexibly to situations that arise. That is a principle that really underpins a lot of the things that people have been talking about this evening. Let me just comment on some of the matters that have been raised.

I reassure Mr O’Connor that the reference to industry brigades in the bill does include airport fire services. They will still be under the direct control of their relevant airport company but they are covered by that provision in the legislation.

With regard to the issue of permits for fire in open-air pits, a member to my left observed that there would be mayhem in certain parts of the country if every hangi pit required a permit, but there is the capacity for Fire and Emergency New Zealand to authorise various things or places or areas, if you like, as not being a fire in open air, so that that can be dealt with, again, by the—

Hon Ruth Dyson: It’s never dry enough to be a problem on the West Coast.

Hon PETER DUNNE: It seems a bit ironic to be talking about it right at this time, but that can include the fire pits the member was talking about and can address the situation he was referring to.

With regard to Mr Faafoi’s comments regarding traffic management plans, I know that the Plimmerton brigade made a submission to the select committee about this particular point. I need to just make a couple of comments in response. Again, I go back to my comments about permissive rather than prescriptive legislation.

The issue here is driven largely by workplace health and safety requirements. It is not my view that we need to incorporate an amendment into this bill, but the Fire Service as it stands and the Transport Agency are currently working to deal with some of the issues regarding traffic management plans and how they might be applied to ensure the safety of road users and firefighters who might be involved in the situations that the member described. It is not the intention of Fire and Emergency New Zealand to move away from using traffic management plans, but we do want to see developed a better code of practice, if one likes—and I say that not capitalising those letters—between the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) and Fire and Emergency New Zealand. We also want to make sure that in doing that we lessen the administrative burden that there currently is on volunteer brigades.

I note that the amendment that was proposed would not actually prevent the use of traffic management plans. I think the point the member raises is a valid one. I do not see it as being appropriate to deal with under the legislation, but it is something that is being dealt with as part of the transition work right now in discussions between Fire and Emergency New Zealand and the NZTA.

Let me turn to Mr Clayton Mitchell’s comments regarding firebreaks, particularly clause 58. I apologise to the member because I came in halfway through his speech, so may not have heard all of it correctly, but, as I understand him, the point that he was expressing concern about was the removal of the specific reference to forestry land and the replacement of that with a more general reference to land. I would make two comments in response.

The first is that the reference to forestry land in the current legislation is largely a historical reference. It does not take account of other land areas, for instance other forms of vegetation than a forest of trees, that might be the subject of contention. So what, again, we are trying to do here is create an overall situation within which there can be flexibility, rather than legislate for the highly specific, which then becomes irrelevant once there is a minor change to the circumstance.

I just draw the member’s attention to clause 6, the interpretation clause of the bill. The member will see there that there is a broader definition included of a firebreak, which I think covers a much wider range of possibilities. So I understand, again, the concern that he is raising—that we may potentially leave forestry land exposed as a result of these changes. My point in response is to say that when anyone looks at the breadth of the amendment and looks at it alongside the provision in the interpretation clause, there is protection for that.

Kris Faafoi: Mr Chair.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I cannot give Mr Faafoi the call because he has had all his calls, so it had better be Iain Lees-Galloway.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): You almost make it sound like it is a shame, Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well—

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Ha, ha! I thank Minister Dunne for his responses to the questions that other colleagues have raised. I wonder whether the Minister could address at least one more issue in Part 2. It is an issue relating to clause 54, which was actually raised at the Government Administration Committee by the—oh, what are they called? The legislation advisory committee with the “D” in it. I cannot recall what the “D” stands for—anyway, the people who offer us advice on how to craft good legislation to make sure that legislation actually says what we intend it to say. The issue that was raised with clause 54 was that clause 54(1) says: “A person must not light or allow another person to light a fire in open air in an area that is in a prohibited fire season.” The issue that was raised was what exactly “allow another person to light a fire” means. The question that was raised by the committee—the legislation drafting and advisory committee—was: what relationship does the other person who allows someone to light a fire have to have with that person?

The penalties for allowing someone to light a fire are not insignificant. They are the same as actually lighting the fire yourself: “a term of imprisonment not exceeding 2 years or … a fine not exceeding $300,000, or both:”. I note that a person commits that offence if they “knowingly or recklessly [contravene] subsection (1)”—so if they knowingly or recklessly allow someone else to light a fire. You could knowingly allow someone else to light a fire just by happening upon someone who is lighting a fire. You may not have the means immediately available to stop that person doing it, but you would knowingly be allowing them to do that. I see that the officials said that their intention is that this would apply in situations where the fire is lit in a remote area and more than one person is present at the time that the fire is lit. That may very well be the policy intention, but that is not clear, and I think that is the point the legislation drafting and advisory committee was making as part of what was a lengthy submission on this bill. The point that it was making was that that policy intention is not clear in the legislation.

So my question to the Minister is that this has not been addressed by the select committee, nor has it been addressed by the lengthy Supplementary Order Paper 262 that makes a number of amendments, which has been tabled by the Minister: is he satisfied the policy intention is adequately captured by the wording in the legislation? It seems that the wording is rather broad, and that a person who has no connection to someone who is committing an act of arson or is lighting a fire during a prohibited fire season could potentially be captured by this, and could therefore, also, be at risk of receiving a significant term of imprisonment or a significant fine. It just seems strange to me that an organisation that has no particular axe to grind, that is purely here to assist us as parliamentarians to craft legislation that does what we think it should do, has raised a fairly straightforward issue that would be easy to deal with, yet the Minister has chosen not to address that in his Supplementary Order Paper. I wonder whether he would be prepared to go on record as to what the policy intention exactly is, and to explain why he is comfortable with the wording as it is currently done.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

Aupito WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): There are a number of clauses that I would like to raise and ask questions of in Part 2. Like my colleague Damien O’Connor, I have not been part of this select committee, so forgive me, Minister Dunne, if I am asking questions that have already been asked, but none the less they are important questions.

I note that in clauses 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40 there are significant powers being given to an “authorised person”. I am not quite clear: how does an authorised person become an authorised person on this particular emergency? That is the first question. The second question is—when I look at the powers that have been given to this authorised person, they are significant powers. In fact, they are powers to tear down buildings adjacent to a fire and powers to remove vegetation or trees adjacent to such an emergency, and I am asking how that relates to rural fires. I also ask, in respect of clause 30 or 40—I have lost my clause now—how it relates to rural fires. One of the clauses—clause 39, I believe—states that Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) is able to access water for free, but my understanding of rural fire authorities is that they can reclaim the cost of putting down a fire. If Fire and Emergency New Zealand is using water for free, are they including that cost when they are recovering the cost of putting down a fire? I do not know.

But the one thing that concerns me about the significant powers—I will tell you what happened in Samoa a few years ago, and I am relating this to the rural area—is that there was a fire there and the fire department decided to water down the houses next to it to prevent the fire from spreading. Well, it caused some problems because the people did not understand why they were watering their houses, which were not on fire, instead of watering the exact fire itself. Secondly, in another situation, when the fire department did tear down the adjacent building the question was asked: how do the people recover the cost of the property that has been destroyed as a result of the fire and emergency services attempting to put down that particular emergency?

We have cases in South Auckland where the police department has gone in and has broken into a garage and left it, in search of a party, and the families are left wondering how they recover the cost of the damage that has been caused. So whilst that may not necessarily directly relate to this, I foresee a situation where if there is a fire and the fire department believes that in order to put that fire out they either must enter a building or force entry into it or tear it down so it does not spread, how does the family that has been affected then recover the cost of the damage that has been caused in order for the department to carry out its work?

There it is—clause 45(1)—“All FENZ personnel may, free of charge,—(a) use all hydrants and control …”. So in the case of the rural fire authority, are the costs of the water part of the calculation when they are recovering the cost of putting down that fire?

In clause 49—this is the open-air fire situation that my colleague Damien O’Connor used—currently we have a situation where families in South Auckland, if they wanted to cook some food in an open rock oven, which we would call an umu, would just do it. It used to be the past practice that you called the council and the council simply said that as long as you had a hose there, it was fine. From reading the legislation, there is a licensing or permit regime that would now undertake—

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I am pleased to take a call in this part, because I missed a large chunk of the earlier debate on this bill due to the fires in my electorate in Christchurch. The combination of those fires, very recently, and the floods that we are still experiencing now is a very good reminder to this Committee of how much we owe to the firefighters around our country whether they are rural and forest or whether they are volunteers or whether they are professional. In the Port Hills fires those three groups joined together and did an amazing job of saving many houses. Tragically, one life was lost and many houses were lost as well, but it was an example of what, I think, the vision of this bill is.

The part that we are discussing tonight might seem quite odd to some members of the Committee. It is this: what shall we put in the law that firefighters should do? Ha, ha! But actually it makes sense because you do have to do that because they have responsibilities, they have roles, and they have additional powers that need to be granted by law in emergency situations, in terms of access to water, in terms of controlling fires or prohibiting fires. So there are powers and responsibilities that Part 2 gives them.

It also deals with industry brigades, and I heard the comment from Damien O’Connor in this regard earlier. Industry brigades—the Minister in the chair, the Hon Peter Dunne, might correct me if I am in error here—are the only group that are not actually formally under Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) now in this proposal, but there is going to be a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between industry brigades, which are like company brigades, really; they operate just around one organisation, generally. There will be MOUs between them and Fire and Emergency New Zealand. I wish it was called “Fire and Emergency Services New Zealand”, but I will wait till next year and we will just do an amendment to the legislation after we change the Government. I guess it is probably the best way.

One other point that I want to make in this contribution is in relation to Supplementary Order Paper 263 from Kris Faafoi. I deeply regret that Kris Faafoi has already used his four calls and could not get a fifth. I would like to pose the Minister a direct challenge, because of the idea that some fire hydrants are not being checked because the requirements of a traffic management plan, for goodness’ sake, are too onerous—so they are left in a condition that is not appropriate. They are not working properly or, even worse, the Fire Service is breaking the law or the requirements of the service in not having a traffic management plan when firefighters check a fire hydrant. Either of those is unacceptable. We want Fire and Emergency New Zealand to just work and work properly. Firefighters need to check the fire hydrants. For goodness’ sake, they do not need a traffic management plan when they go and put the fire out. I hope we never get to that extreme. This is a silly situation and it should be fixed.

I would like a commitment from the Minister, seeing as he has told us he is not going to support the Supplementary Order Paper, to have in his letter of expectation, on the conclusion of this legislation, to the new Fire and Emergency New Zealand board a requirement that it has a common-sense approach to dealing with checking of fire hydrants and ensuring their safety. That is a really easy option for the Minister to take. Stop the board imposing such nonsensical and unnecessary requirements on our firefighters. They know better than pretty well anyone how to keep safe, actually. I have confidence that they will know how to check a fire hydrant without getting run over, and that is all you want. You want the fire hydrants to work. You want the firefighters to be safe. That is my challenge to the Minister.

I have enjoyed chairing the Government Administration Committee, which looked at this legislation. This part was really funny, but I can assure all members of the Committee that we did look in a lot of detail at what powers we were giving to the firefighters, what responsibilities they had, and just really making sure that it would work. So if we can get that commitment out of the Minister tonight, we will all go home happy—a lot happier than we would have been had we finished the evening debating the resource management legislation.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 262 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to Part 2 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 109

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Amendments agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The consequential amendments in the name of Adrian Rurawhe to Part 2 are out of order because the matter has already been dealt with and lost as part of Part 1.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 263 in the name of Kris Faafoi to insert new clause 48A be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 60

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.

Noes 61

New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 109

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Levy

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): This part—Part 3 of the bill—deals with the insurance levy payment system to fund the new Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ). My comments will go to the concerns that were expressed around this part of the bill, particularly by museums. The concerns were raised at the Government Administration Committee by museums from right around the country. We believe that museums have a strong and compelling case, in terms of the financial challenges that they would face if they were required to pay the levy based on the value of their collections.

I just want to refer in particular to the Otago Museum Trust Board’s submission, which of course was a very good submission. Its concern was that if the bill went ahead as was planned before the Government Administration Committee, it would have resulted in a 300 percent increase on the levy that it currently pays, which I think was around $37,000 a year. Given that its sources of funding are not likely to increase to cover that, that was going to create a significant imposition. I think the select committee dealt with the issue sensibly, and clearly had—I did not sit on the select committee, although I did sit in to listen to those submissions. They dealt with the—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The time has come for me to leave the Chair and report progress.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill with amendment, progress on the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill, and no progress on the Māori Purposes Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.