Wednesday, 18 September 2019

WEDNESDAY, 18 SEPTEMBER 2019

WEDNESDAY, 18 SEPTEMBER 2019

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the performance of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yesterday, the New Zealand Superannuation Fund announced it had grown by more than $3.7 billion over the past financial year to $43.1 billion. This represents a 7 percent return after costs and before tax, beating the fund’s benchmark by 67 basis points or $261 million. The super fund chair Catherine Savage said the result was satisfying for the fund which “as a long-term investor, has the ability to look through and profit from … periods of uncertainty and volatility that have impacted global markets.” including trade tensions between the US and China and actions by central banks around the world.

Dr Deborah Russell: What reaction has he seen about the Superannuation Fund’s annual result?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This morning, I saw reports of a radio host that I never listen to saying that the super fund was “having a reasonable old year”, and that its 7 percent return was “not a bad return in these difficult and awkward times”. This followed super fund CEO Matt Whineray’s comments that there had been more economic volatility this year with issues like the recent Saudi Arabia oil crisis and actions by the US Federal Reserve currently occupying market attention. It has indeed been a good year for the super fund, which is now backed by a Government that restarted contributions after nine years of those contributions being suspended.

Dr Deborah Russell: What reports has he seen on the Government’s contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The coalition Government is helping to safeguard the future of New Zealand super. We resumed contributions to the fund in our first 100 days. This morning, super fund CEO Matt Whineray was asked on Newstalk ZB whether the resumed Government contributions had helped, to which he replied, “We received $1 billion last year. We’ll get another billion and a half, and that all helps to grow this pot over time and helps us with our purpose, which is smoothing out the long-run costs of New Zealand superannuation.” To which he received the response, “Good on yah, Matt.” On this side of the House, we join with Mike Hosking in congratulating the super fund and, indeed, the Government on such a result during a time of global economic volatility.

Question No. 2—Justice

2. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all his statements, policies, and actions regarding the cannabis referendum?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: When will the public know the question for the referendum on legalising recreational cannabis?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: In due course.

Hon Paula Bennett: When will the public see the draft bill that will set out the regulated framework for legalising recreational cannabis?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Following an appropriate consultation process involving stakeholders, including that member and all her party who have agreed to be part of the cross-party group putting together the draft legislation.

Hon Paula Bennett: Is he concerned about the conflation of information in the public domain between medicinal and recreational marijuana?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I have noticed some people talking both about recreational use of marijuana and medicinal use of marijuana, but I’m equally sure that some of the material that has been put into the public arena, such as the two broadcast programmes on TV3 last week, the contribution by the Helen Clark Foundation, and the contribution by the Drug Foundation, means that it would be very clear, actually, what next year’s referendum will be all about.

Hon Paula Bennett: How will he ensure that that is clear?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Through a well-run, well-organised information campaign that will be supported by the Government.

Hon Paula Bennett: Why, then, as the Minister has stated, are Helen Clark, the New Zealand Drug Foundation, and Patrick Gower all being left to fill the void of information while his Government is failing to provide that information to the public?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: For the member’s information, the referendum is to be held next year in next year’s general election, which, on best calculations and estimates, is likely to be in the latter part of the year. There is plenty of time to complete the development of the draft legislation and the information and the consultation with stakeholders—including that member and her party—and, therefore, to prepare material to feed into the public debate.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: To help the member with respect to the dissemination of information around this referendum, will some of the information be in pictures?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: We will be looking at all modes of communication, including text, pictures, colouring-in books—whatever helps.

Hon Paula Bennett: Wonderful. Which way will he be voting in the referendum to legalise recreational cannabis?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: In our country, ballots are secret, and I will reserve my judgment and keep secret my vote.

Question No. 3—Immigration

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): My question is to the Minister of Immigration, to whom I’d like to wish a very happy 40th birthday.

3. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Immigration: Is he satisfied with the performance of the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): I thank the member for his birthday wishes; it’s 41, not 40. I say to the member [Interruption]—and sounding every bit of it, I suspect. I say to the member that if he wants to bring his own curry, he’d be welcome to join me for celebrations during the dinner break this evening. The Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme (RSE) provides an important source of income for many of our Pacific neighbours and an important source of workers for our horticulture and viticulture industries. The RSE scheme has been recognised by the World Bank and others as a model for circular migration schemes. The scheme is now 12 years old and due for a refresh. This year, at my direction, Immigration New Zealand undertook an operational review that has led to process improvements. Further policy work that aims to improve outcomes for employers, RSE workers, and New Zealanders is under way; I expect to announce progress on this in due course.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a letter, dated today, sent from 12 horticultural growers to the Minister stating that they are certainly not satisfied with the performance of the RSE scheme.

SPEAKER: The member has permission from each of those signatories?

David Seymour: Yes, that’s right.

SPEAKER: He does. Shall leave be granted; is there any objection?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes, it’s in the public domain.

SPEAKER: It’s in the public domain? It’s on a website or something?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: It is, yes. I’ve got it here.

SPEAKER: Now, I’m going to ask David Seymour: did he know it was on a website?

David Seymour: No, Mr Speaker. It was sent to some media outlets at 1 p.m. It was, of course, conceivable they could have—but I hadn’t detected any publication before I came to question time.

David Seymour: How can the Minister be satisfied with the performance of the RSE scheme when feedback he’s receiving from people in the sector is: “We can only assume that you are unaware that your failure to announce the [number of RSE places this year] will result in the horticulture businesses that harvest in October and November having to leave a large proportion of their crops rotting in the ground again, as happened last year when you were late in announcing the cap [on the number of RSE workers].”?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well, I’d say that’s the view of a small minority of employers in the sector, but I would also point out to the member that it is now September, and, in the entire history of the RSE scheme, I can only detect one year when the cap increase was announced earlier than September.

David Seymour: Does the Minister doubt that failing to get the number of RSE workers announced before the harvest starts leaves growers with a labour shortage, unable to harvest their crops, and their crops rotting in the ground, as happened last year?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: People can source labour from all sorts of different areas. The RSE scheme only provides about 20 percent of the workforce for the horticulture and viticulture industries. If some employers are struggling to find workers, I suggest they look at things like the use of casual contracts, the use of piece rates, and the way they advertise those jobs to make sure that those jobs are more attractive—especially those who are located in South Auckland, where there are a large number of people available to do seasonal work.

Marja Lubeck: What are the Minister’s expectations of RSE employers?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Last year, I laid down a number of challenges to RSE employers, encouraging them to work with the Government to provide more worker accommodation, to look at better use of automation, and to look at the wages and conditions that they provide across their sector to make their jobs more attractive. I have to say, many of those employers are responding to those challenges, but there is certainly a lot more work that needs to be done.

David Seymour: Is the Minister saying that even when employers have had all of their accommodation inspected, when they have met all of the conditions for being a recognised seasonal employer, when the Ministry of Social Development has produced an opinion that their labour needs cannot be satisfied within the local labour market, they still cannot access enough Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme workers to get their crops harvested before they rot?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I am aware that some employers have raised issues with the way in which the workers who come to New Zealand under the RSE scheme—those numbers—are allocated from employer to employer. That is certainly something that I intend to consider as part of the refresh and policy work that is currently under way.

David Seymour: Does the Minister recognise that fruits need to be harvested when they are ripe, not when the bureaucracy of Government is ready to approve visas for workers to come and harvest them; and, in light of that, will—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! That’s two legs already.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes, which is why last year we increased the cap by 1,750, which is around 16 percent, and the year before we increased the cap by 600, which was around 6 percent. I compare that with the period of time between 2008 and 2014, when the previous Government didn’t raise it at all.

Stuart Smith: Is the Minister going to raise the RSE cap; and, if so, by how much?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The member will just have to wait a few more sleeps. That decision will be out soon.

Stuart Smith: When is the Minister going to announce the RSE cap?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Soon.

Question No. 4—Education

4. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of Education: What action is the Government taking to make sure that New Zealand history is taught in schools and kura?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Last week, the Government announced that New Zealand history will become a core part of the New Zealand Curriculum. Up until now, it’s been up to schools and kura to decide how New Zealand history is covered in their schools, which, quite frankly, has been leaving far too much to chance. We’ve heard the call from all over the country that New Zealanders want to see our history taught in all of our schools and kura, and I want to particularly acknowledge the advocacy from the students from Ōtorohanga College and the New Zealand History Teachers’ Association, who have been raising and campaigning for this for some time.

Tamati Coffey: What happens next to make these changes to the New Zealand Curriculum?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The next step is that the Ministry of Education will be working with historical and curriculum experts, iwi, mana whenua, Pacific communities, students, parents, whānau, and everybody with an interest in New Zealand history. The changes are intended to ensure that learners are aware of key aspects of New Zealand history and how it has influenced and shaped our nation. There are going to be different viewpoints on the teaching of New Zealand history, and it’s important to note that this is not about indoctrination or trying to rewrite history; this is about giving learners the opportunity to undertake historical inquiry, to study multiple perspectives and different experiences of key events in our history. It’s about giving voice to our many rich stories in history that form part of our overall history, whether that be good, bad, or otherwise.

Tamati Coffey: Which year levels will be expected to learn New Zealand history from the changes that will be made to the national curriculum?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The changes will cover the entire breadth of the national curriculum, so that will include the learning areas in the curriculum which are compulsory from years 1 to 10. From year 11, students will be able to choose from a range of subjects that they take for the NCEA, and the review of the NCEA is providing further opportunities for students to learn more about New Zealand history.

Tamati Coffey: When will these changes to the national curriculum take effect?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Next year, we’ll be developing the changes to the curriculum in collaboration with all of the interested parties. I will then be issuing an update to the curriculum in the New Zealand Gazette. We’ll then give schools and kura a year to prepare to deliver the changes to the curriculum, and they’ll be ready to go at the beginning of 2022.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements, policies, and actions?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were given and undertaken, including the actions to support the film and television industry, that supports productions such as Amazon’s Lord of the Rings, that will bring many direct jobs and spin-off benefits to New Zealand and to the Auckland region in particular.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he stand by his statement in this House that he neither requested nor received any advice on the fiscal risks to the Government and current taxpayers if full and final Treaty settlements were to be reopened?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, I do.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, in the absence of such advice, how can the Government make a decision in response to news reports today that mana whenua want the private land at Ihumātao returned, even though the area has been the subject of a full and final settlement?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member made reference to a question that I had previously answered, and while I have great powers, I wasn’t able to see into the future for today’s statement.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, has he asked for such advice?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Will his Government rule out reopening full and final settlements right now?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This Government has absolutely no intention of reopening full and final settlements. We’re getting on with the process of dealing with the Treaty settlements that are in front of us.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What policies has he put in place to restore confidence to private landowners and other investors following the experience of Fletcher’s, who have faced months of delays to their plans to build houses on their land—a delay extended by the Prime Minister?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think all parties involved in this situation were grateful for the intervention of the Prime Minister to provide space to be able to come up with a resolution that all parties could accept. On this side of the House, we’re about building constructive relationships, not attempting to divide people against each other.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has he had a chance to think of one major transport project that the Government has started?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I welcome the opportunity to do this. I could have picked the Awakino tunnel bypass, I could have picked Dome Valley, I could have picked the Kaeō bridge, I could have picked Loop Road, I could have picked Ōpōnoni, I could have picked State Highway 1 Papakura to Bombay, I could have picked Waipapa through the Provincial Growth Fund, I could have picked State Highway 10 and Tākaka Hill, and many others.

Question No. 6—Economic Development

6. Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he consider a strong manufacturing sector to be an important indicator of a strong economy: if so, is he concerned that manufacturing has contracted two months in a row for the first time since 2012?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Economic Development): Yes, manufacturing is crucial to New Zealand moving from volume to value. On the second part of the question, yes, manufacturing is our most trade-exposed sector of the economy, accounting for more than half of our exports. We are monitoring the effect that global uncertainty is having on manufacturing, but it’s important to note that New Zealand has strong economic fundamentals: unemployment near record low, 3.9 percent; stable GDP growth at 2.7 percent; low inflation, 1.7 percent; rising wages; and books in surplus. We also have a number of programmes in place to support manufacturers to innovate and to grow: the R & D tax credit, commercialisation funds, and our skills and training programmes. We’re also opening up new trade opportunities so that our manufacturers can diversify their export products and destinations.

Hon Todd McClay: Is he aware that employment in manufacturing has gone backwards for four consecutive months under his Government?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, what the member is seeing—and it’s recorded in the performance of manufacturing index—is the effect that international uncertainty is having, and the change in the index for new orders underlines that. By international standards, our manufacturing sector is highly exposed to international markets, and BNZ economists said recently that there’s no doubt the manufacturing sector is under stress, much like it is elsewhere in the world at present.

Hon Todd McClay: Well, is he aware that New Zealand exporters are receiving some of the highest prices they have in a decade, and, if so, how does he explain new orders in manufacturing now being at their lowest point in a decade?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, export prices are high, but that may well be because of other factors, and as the Prime Minister said yesterday, we’ve seen very high export prices for beef and lamb, boosted by issues like swine fever in China. The point is that global uncertainty is feeding through into investment decisions that businesses are making. They are seeing global uncertainty and therefore not investing as much now to generate future activity. Given how trade exposed our manufacturing is, the change in the index for new orders shows, without a doubt, the effect that that uncertainty is having on our manufacturers.

Hon Todd McClay: Well, is he honestly saying that the reason that manufacturing is going backwards and the economy is slowing is because of African swine flu in China, and doesn’t it have more to do with the anti-growth policies and considerable uncertainty that his Government has created over the last two years?

SPEAKER: Order! The member will rephrase the question to make it in order.

Hon Todd McClay: Is he honestly saying that it is African swine flu in China that is the reason for the slowdown, and isn’t it actually the case that it’s his Government’s policies and uncertainty that are delivering concern to the manufacturing sector in New Zealand?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No. Swine flu is one reason why export prices are currently so high in relation to lamb and beef. But, look, I need to point out to the member that manufacturing sectors have been contracting in most other advanced economies, including Germany, the UK, Japan, and the eurozone, while in the US and China we’re seeing very, very slight expansion. This Government inherited a failure to invest in the workforce for manufacturing, and that is the thing that’s holding our manufacturers back right now. That’s what the—

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I know it’s not a Government question, but the member was going on too long.

Hon Todd McClay: What impact does uncertainty caused by his Government having no economic plan and their hundreds of working groups have on the confidence and growth of the manufacturing sector?

SPEAKER: I’m going to ask the member to rephrase the question so it’s within order.

Hon Todd McClay: What impact does uncertainty caused by a lack of a plan by this Government and their hundreds of working groups have on confidence and growth of the manufacturing sector?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I completely reject the premise of that question. We’ve inherited a failure to invest in the workforce. We’re faced with global uncertainty. Actually, compared to all of the other comparators internationally, our manufacturing sector and our economy are performing extremely well at the moment. We are working with manufacturers, actually, to raise productivity and reorient the economy away from the reliance on population growth and property speculation that was the hallmark of economic policy under the former Government.

Hon Todd McClay: Well, is he aware that his Government is having the same impact on manufacturing confidence as the global financial crisis, with confidence levels falling 73 points since they came to Government?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, the reason business sentiment is in that position is because of the global headwinds. It’s because of the—

Hon David Bennett: You’re an idiot.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: —global uncertainty that’s being experienced by all of our major trading—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. David Bennett will withdraw and apologise.

Hon David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: He’s on his last warning.

Question No.7—Immigration

7. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Immigration: What announcements has the Minister made this week regarding changes to the temporary work visa system?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Yesterday, I announced our new single temporary work visa system, that will make it easier for good employers to get the workers they need to fill skills shortages while ensuring New Zealanders get opportunities and training and migrant workers are not exploited. Over 25,000 businesses and 55,000 workers will benefit from these changes. This work complements changes to the vocational training system to fix the skills shortage we inherited from the previous Government.

Kiritapu Allan: What does this new system involve?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Our new, streamlined system for temporary work visas involves introducing a new employer-led framework that will drive the visa application process, introducing compulsory accreditation for all employers seeking to employ foreign workers, introducing sector agreements, reinstating the ability for lower-paid workers to bring their families to New Zealand, replacing the existing skill bands with a simple remuneration threshold aligned to the median wage, strengthening the labour market test for lower-paid workers, and including skills shortage lists in Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin.

Kiritapu Allan: As a birthday present to you, how has the business community reacted to this new, streamlined visa system?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I have heard it said that some were “levitating with happiness” with the good news. The Meat Industry Association and Federated Farmers welcomed it, saying, “We … acknowledge the government for its compassionate and pragmatic approach [to] reinstating the family entitlement for lower skilled visa holders.” The Tourism Industry Association said, “These work visa changes support New Zealand tourism employers.” The Canterbury chamber of commerce, Horticulture New Zealand, Business Central, and Dairy New Zealand all put out supportive press releases. I don’t think I’ve captured them all—I couldn’t keep up.

Question No. 8—Agriculture

8. TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Agriculture: Does he stand by his statement in the House on 27 August that, in stating the cost to farmers of meeting the Government’s proposed new water policies would be 1 to 2 percent, “My estimate was based on my personal experience and talking with farmers. It was a guesstimate.” and, if so, has he received any official advice that has changed his “guesstimate”?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Yes, I stand by my estimate, and nothing has changed it. The freshwater document includes some 14 pages of modelling. We’re going to build on that as part of consultation as we hear more from farmers. There are many farmers who are doing great work to protect waterways and boost their profitability. For example, Southland farmer Mark Anderson is using different methods to slow down the water cycle so that the land filters the water. He says, “It’s going to clean up our rivers and it’s a healthier way to farm.” Anderson told Stuff that he wishes he had made the changes 15 years ago.

Todd Muller: How does he square his guesstimate with the Landcare report Modelling the impact of freshwater mitigation scenarios: results for the Ruamahanga catchment, which estimates that total farm revenue will fall between 7 and 46 percent when the impact of the multiple proposals are combined?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I am very aware that different catchments around the country will have to use different methods to reduce their nitrate output. We are determined to have good quality water in this country—in rivers, in lakes, and on the beaches. I think most New Zealanders deserve that. The modelling that some people have done is accurate, but some of the scaremongering by the National Party is completely unhelpful, and all it’s doing is scaring good farmers who want to get on and do the right thing.

Todd Muller: How does he square his 1 to 2 percent guesstimate with the AgFirst report Modelling of mitigation strategies on farm profitability, released by the Ministry for the Environment, that states that the cost of shifting to a five-metre fencing set back on a representative Waikato - Bay of Plenty dairy farm will be 40 percent of earnings before interest and taxes over a 10-year period?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: What we have is a discussion document, with a number of proposals that we are putting out in front of farmers. I know there are many organisations going out there and doing their estimates. Can I say, Mr Speaker—[Interruption] Can I say, Mr Speaker, in my view—

SPEAKER: The member can say, and some of us would like to hear.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Thank you. In my view, the cost to the average farmer in this country, when we’ve finally come up with the proposals, will be far less than the annual bonus he got from Fonterra as a senior executive.

Todd Muller: Pathetic. How does he square his 1 to 2 percent guesstimate with reports by Local Government New Zealand and Landcare that show that over half of the Waikato-Waipā catchment, and close to 100 percent of the Clutha catchment, would need to be afforested to achieve nitrogen and sediment bottom lines?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: We haven’t made decisions on these issues. That’s why we have a discussion document out there. If that member continues to go round the country, and paint the worst possible scenario, when, in fact, the vast majority of farmers in this country are trying to do their very best, the changes they will have to make will be far less than anything he or his mates project. Can I say that many, many farmers welcome this move, and when I go round and talk to catchment groups, they say, “We’re getting on and investing. We are tidying up our waterways, but there are some laggards in the system, and we want Government assistance to make sure that those laggards get on and do the right thing.” That member is supporting the laggards.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is Fonterra supporting his initiatives, despite having to recover from appalling mismanagement economically in the past?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: In spite of some disastrous decision-making by both governance and senior management over the years, Fonterra understands the need to have clean water in New Zealand to back up its international image around the world as a country of producers of the finest food, from the best environmental management in the world. Fonterra sent out a letter supporting our moves to clean up the waterways, and I’m thankful for a new level of governance and management in that company—a company that was let down by previous management disasters.

Todd Muller: That letter that went to the Fonterra shareholders that you just quoted—was that the same letter that said, “Fonterra utterly rejects the Government’s dissolved-in-water nitrogen levels as totally unpractical”?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Absolutely, I—[Interruption] Can I say, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I say especially for the member who’s generally better behaved than he is now: when he asks a question, he should not lead the group of people who are stopping the answer being heard.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Can I say that it would be unusual if Fonterra agreed with every single thing that the Government put up, but can I say that Fonterra absolutely supports the improvement of waterways in our country where they are degraded, and they’re not degraded everywhere. That’s one of the issues that we’re happy to have a discussion about with Fonterra and any other farmer around this country. That’s why we’re out there listening to their views. It’s a shame the previous Government didn’t.

Todd Muller: Will he listen to farmer leaders who are asking the Government for 12 weeks to submit on 2,000 pages of supporting documentation for the freshwater policies, because they need a fair time to actually read and respond, or will he say, as he said last week, “No; six weeks is enough—maybe a two-week extension if you’re lucky. This has all largely been signed off”?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: As I explained to farmers last night at a meeting in Greymouth, we have extended the submission time. We do understand it’s a busy time of the year, but the standard period for consultation is about six weeks. This is a discussion document, and most of the farmers that I speak to are intelligent, they are forward-thinking, and they can put in a submission within the six-week period. Maybe he’s talking to the wrong people.

Question No. 9—Environment

9. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister for the Environment: Has he received a copy of the August 2019 Landcare Research report, “Impact testing of a proposed suspended sediment attribute: identifying erosion and sediment control mitigations to meet proposed sediment attribute bottom lines and the costs and benefits of those mitigations” and, if so, does the report state, “The Clutha catchment has the largest reduction in level of nitrogen leaching, because its entire area is afforested to meet the sediment reduction target”?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Yes and yes, but the member misrepresents the report. He makes two fundamental mistakes. The first is that the report is about highly erodible areas, not whole catchments, as the member suggested. The second is that although the theoretical, desktop nationwide model he quotes was prepared, it was not applied to this catchment in particular. This theoretical model does not account for glacial river flour, or ground-up rock. Fortunately, the member will be pleased to learn that the proposed national policy statement specifically provides for the exclusion of rivers carrying glacial flour—which is what the Clutha does—and I refer him to pages 23 and 40, where it says that the attribute on suspended fine sediment does not apply to glacial flour - affected streams and rivers like the Clutha.

Hon Scott Simpson: Does the same report, on page vii, state, “Among the selected catchments, the Clutha requires the largest area of afforestation (375,300 ha).”?

Hon DAVID PARKER: You know, I was born on the banks of the Clutha, in Roxburgh. I’ve lived up further in the catchment, in Queenstown. I’ve walked the Dart, the Rees, the Routeburn, the Rockburn, the Greenstone, the Caples, the Matukituki, the Wilkin, and the Young rivers in the Clutha catchment. I still camp, most years, on the Manuherikia, another major tributary of the Clutha. I’ve rafted the Clutha from Wānaka to Clyde, before it was dammed by the National Party, and I can assure that member that outside of Fiordland and Mount Aspiring national parks, the land is mainly tussock land and rolling, open hill country. Indeed, ever since the woody scrublands were burnt in pre-European times by Māori chasing moa, it has been that way. It has never been predominantly forest, and it never will be.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Just to get it clear: is the Clutha a glacial river since yesterday, or has it been that way for tens and tens of thousands of years?

Hon DAVID PARKER: It has, sir, and it will be for many, many years, unless the National Party get their way on climate change policy, in which case those glaciers will melt pretty fast.

Hon Scott Simpson: Then, what is his response to the conclusion, at page 61 from the report, which says, “these are substantial costs incurred by farmers … These high costs may drive some farmers to change their land use or even shift their employment to non-agricultural work.”?

Hon DAVID PARKER: It appears that the member still does not understand. Regulatory impact statements are informed by reports like that, but that was not a report into the national policy statement that is proposed, which, as I have said, excludes from the fine suspended sediment attribute rivers that are carrying glacial flour.

Hon Scott Simpson: Why then, given that answer, is the report linked on the Ministry for the Environment web page that relates to consultation on his freshwater package?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Because the regulatory impact statement is a requirement of the underlying legislation in New Zealand. It’s prepared independently by the ministry and it referenced the report for the reasons that I’ve explained.

Hon Scott Simpson: Does he still believe that when it comes to water policy, New Zealanders can simply trust him because he knows what he’s doing?

Hon DAVID PARKER: On this occasion, I think that member has displayed who’s right and who’s wrong.

Kieran McAnulty: Are there problems with soil sediment, not glacial flour from ground-up rocks, in some lower South Island rivers?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Most certainly there are. Just two weeks ago, I had a meeting with the Otago rock lobster industry, who provided me with these recent photographs of the Taieri, which does have a problem with suspended soil sediment after high rain events. That’s a photo of the sediment coming out of the Taieri River. This is a photograph of how far that plume spreads up the coast, and these are photographs of what the rock lobster industry says is the effect on the decline of the Otago kelp beds, which used to be in the areas that are shown in yellow and have declined to the areas shown in red. These are serious issues, and we are determined to address them.

Kieran McAnulty: What are high soil sediment levels doing to estuaries in the area?

Hon DAVID PARKER: We’ve also got problems in our estuaries. This photograph is of a river just south of the Clutha, the Ōreti, that discharges into the New River Estuary, which is immediately behind Invercargill. These are recent—

Hon Jacqui Dean: Why does Labour hate farmers?

Hon DAVID PARKER: —sediments. These are the cockle—oh, I see. I hate farmers, Jacqui Dean says. You know, these are the cockle beds—why does she hate cockles? These are the cockle beds that have been destroyed as a consequence. This is the status quo that the National Party is trying to protect.

Kieran McAnulty: What are high soil sediment levels doing to streams in the area?

Hon DAVID PARKER: A tributary of the Ōreti River that ends in that estuary is the Otapiri Stream. It is one of the most studied streams in northern Southland or in Southland, because it’s got records that go back to the 1960s. There has just been a peer-reviewed study by Cawthron Institute and Fish & Game members in the latest New Zealand Natural Sciences magazine. It’s based on this data set and photographs that aren’t in it. This is a photograph of the stream. The data that they have, which goes back to 1964, shows that in the riffles, where the stream is moving quickly, more than 90 percent of the macroinvertebrates are now dead, and in the pools, where the water is moving slower, more than 99 percent of them are dead. There are actually no fish to catch in that river now as a consequence, because they’ve got nothing to eat either. This is the sort of practice that we need to improve in New Zealand, whereas that is the status quo that the National Party is determined to protect.

Question No. 10—Conservation

10. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green) to the Minister of Conservation: What does Conservation Week – Te Wiki Tiaki Ao Turoa, with its theme “Nature needs us”, aim to achieve?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): This week, we’re celebrating the 50th anniversary of Conservation Week in New Zealand. It’s a time to reflect on how far we’ve come with conservation and how much further there is to go. Conservation Week was started in 1969 by the scouting association, who recognised the importance of giving nature a helping hand. Despite the work that so many are doing to try and protect and restore our indigenous species’ habitats and ecosystems, indigenous nature in our country is in crisis. We have almost 4,000 species threatened or at risk of extinction, including 90 percent of our seabirds, 84 percent of our reptiles, 74 percent of terrestrial birds, 76 percent of freshwater fish, and 46 percent of vascular plants. So nature needs more of us to provide a helping hand and to take action, whether it’s replanting stream banks, taking children into nature, monitoring species, reducing fishing bycatch, or controlling pests and predators, so that our indigenous plants and wildlife can thrive.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What have been some of the significant conservation achievements in recent years?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Fifty years ago, the Chatham Islands black robin, the tīeke or saddleback, and the kākāpō were on the verge of extinction, with dangerously low numbers. Intensive conservation work and dedicated people have brought these precious birds back from the brink. This Government has funded the largest ever landscape-scale predator control of possums, rats, and stoats to cope with a big mast event to keep our native forests, birds, and wildlife safe. Takahē, which were once thought close to extinction, are now increasing in numbers to several hundred birds. We’ve got 45 islands in the Hauraki Gulf which are predator free. We’ve got the biggest addition to a national park in New Zealand’s history; under this Government with 64,000 hectares of land in the Mōkihinui catchment being added to Kahurangi National Park, and I’m proud that this Government is investing in conservation, with the two biggest increases in conservation funding in Budget 2018 and Budget 2019.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What recent announcements have been made regarding kākāpō recovery?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: I’m delighted that thanks to the dedicated work of everyone involved in the Kākāpō Recovery Programme, yesterday, the adult population reached 213 birds—the biggest number of kākāpō in New Zealand in 70 years. That’s a great milestone, and I pay tribute to the dedicated work of everyone involved, including Tane Davis and Ngāi Tahu, Dr Andrew Digby and Deirdre Vercoe, Daryl Eason and other Department of Conservation staff, and the department’s partners, like Auckland Zoo and Dunedin’s wildlife hospital, and the many volunteers who are assisting them. Decades of work by many people have gone into achieving those 213 birds.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What projects are likely to create significant conservation gains over the next 50 years?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: One is that more people recognise that nature is the heart of our success as a country and of our wellbeing and that they get involved in giving nature a hand. It’s the projects we’ve seen with the last Government’s Predator Free 2050 initiative. We have built on that. Now there are hundreds of New Zealanders all around the country involved in backyard trapping, trapping on private land. It’s ensuring that whānau, hapū, and iwi are able to practise kaitiakitanga on public conservation land in their use of natural and cultural resources. It’s action in the marine environment to reduce the bycatch of sea birds, of marine mammals, and of seals and dolphins, and it is establishing a represented network of marine protected areas, given that less than 0.5 percent of our marine environment is currently protected in no-take reserves.

Question No. 9 to Minister

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for not doing this at the end of my question, but I seek leave to table those three sets of documents, mainly photographs: the first relating the Taieri River and the effect on kelp beds, the second relating to the Ōreti estuary or the New River Estuary and related cockle beds, and the third being the Otapiri Stream records.

SPEAKER: As long as the member gives me an assurance they’re not otherwise available on websites.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, I can give that assurance.

SPEAKER: Right.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, I can categorically give it in respect of the Taieri ones. In respect of these other ones, so far as I’m aware, and I’m pretty sure I’m right.

SPEAKER: Right. Let’s put the Taieri ones first. Is there any objection to those being tabled? There appears to be none.

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

SPEAKER: We’ll put the other four. Is there any objection to those being tabled? There appears to be none.

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

Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill

Introduction and Setting Down for First Reading—Leave Declined

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given Conservation Week and the Minister’s enthusiasm for marine protection, I seek leave of the House for my member’s bill, the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill to be introduced and set down for first reading on the next members’ sitting day.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be objection.

Question No. 11—Health

11. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she stand by her statements in relation to the measles outbreak, “There is no shortage of vaccines” and “there’s no issue with supply”?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Health): Yes, in the context they were given.

Matt Doocey: When the Minister said there is no shortage of vaccines, is she confident the latest order of 52,000 measles vaccines will be sufficient to last until the end of January, when the next lot of vaccines is due to arrive, given that 54,000 measles vaccines have been given out so far this month?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: The member may not have seen a Ministry of Health statement that has just been released, saying that approximately 100,000 additional measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines have been secured and will be arriving in the coming weeks. So I would also let him know that 175,000 vaccines have been delivered this year—that’s an 86 percent increase on the same period last year, in which 94,000 were delivered. We have the additional 52,000 which have arrived and are being distributed this week. And just today, the ministry has announced 100,000 additional vaccines have been secured.

Matt Doocey: In light of that answer of the new 100,000 vaccines, why have 1.3 million New Zealanders aged between 30 and 50 no longer been prioritised to receive the measles vaccine?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: The member will be aware that children under the age of two are the most likely to be hospitalised when they get measles. During a significant outbreak, children must be the priority for vaccines, for this reason.

Matt Doocey: In light of the answer of the new 100,000 vaccines, why are there over 1 million New Zealanders aged between 15 and 29 who are no longer being prioritised to receive the measles vaccine as of Monday?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: As I said to that member, children under the age of two are the most likely to be hospitalised. Children must be the priority for vaccines. The guidelines issued by the ministry were subject to additional supply being available. So once the 100,000 are in the country, there will be changes to the prioritisation.

SPEAKER: Can I just ask for a little bit more good taste to be applied by way of interjection during this question. This is a matter that a lot of parents take very seriously.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The first objection that I have is that I don’t believe there are a million New Zealanders between the ages of 15 and 25, which is what the member asserted in this House.

SPEAKER: Well, I apologise for not being quick enough to pick the member up. I should have ruled the question out, if that’s—

Matt Doocey: Responding to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, no. It’s well gone. Sit!

Matt Doocey: It was the Parliamentary Library that gave us that. Could the Minister tell the House today that, now with the 100,000 extra vaccines that will appear, there will no longer be the reprioritisation of the age groups mentioned in previous supplementary questions?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I will do no such thing. We are going to follow expert advice on how we’re going to protect the most vulnerable New Zealanders during a measles outbreak. I don’t think this is a time to be creating a panic for the purpose of politics. New Zealanders have to have confidence in our public health system. I have confidence in the clinicians who are carrying out tens of thousands of vaccinations, and I thank them for their work protecting the most vulnerable New Zealanders.

Melissa Lee: If there are no supply issues with the measles vaccine, and if children are in fact the priority, what does the Minister say to the parents of Malaysian Chinese children who were turned away from their GP yesterday because they were not Māori or Pasifika?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: The ministry and DHBs are actively managing the distribution throughout the country to ensure it is going to where it is needed most—that’s all children. Primary care has been issued with advice to contact a nominated DHB stock manager about vaccine distribution. Fifty-two-thousand additional vaccines have arrived in the country and have yet to be distributed. There will be another additional 100,000. But we need to focus on the most vulnerable and at-risk people if we are to respond to this outbreak responsibly. I would ask the Opposition to be a little more responsible.

Question No. 12—Transport

12. LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Transport: Does he expect the Civil Aviation Authority to act in an open and transparent manner?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Yes. My primary expectation of the Civil Aviation Authority is that it is a high performing, risk-based regulator focused on the civil aviation system. As part of being a good regulator, it should be as open and transparent as it can be, given its role.

Lawrence Yule: Does he think it open and transparent that the Civil Aviation Authority is withholding information from individuals requesting it when that information is about the individual, and the Privacy Commissioner has ruled there is no proper basis for doing so?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It’s very difficult for me to venture any kind of opinion—sensible opinion—on that very vague, hypothetical question from the member. If the member wants to be more specific or follow the convention in this House—and that is, following a very broad primary, to not ask a very specific supplementary and expect a detailed answer—if the member wants to put it down in writing or in a primary, I’ll be very happy to respond fulsomely.

Lawrence Yule: Does the Minister have any concerns that the Civil Aviation Authority would be withholding information when the agencies charged with ensuring transparency and fairness in New Zealand are being blocked?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I expect the Civil Aviation Authority to follow the law and to deliver on its role and my expectation that it does a good job as an aviation safety regulator, and like all modern public service organisations it respects the Privacy Act and it acts in an open and transparent manner, that it treats people with respect and dignity. As I said in my answer to the previous question, if the member’s got a particular case he wants to put to me, give me the details and I will respond.

Lawrence Yule: Has the Minister been briefed by the Civil Aviation Authority CEO Graeme Harris on the reasons why personal and private information is being held from requesters where it has been found that there was no proper basis for doing so?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I’ll say again to the member: if he wants to provide the details of an actual case, I will respond fulsomely, rather than repeatedly asking hypothetical, generic questions.

Lawrence Yule: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was: have you been briefed on that issue?

SPEAKER: Well, I certainly haven’t been, but I think he means “Has the Minister been briefed?”

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I haven’t been briefed on a matter that lines up with the way the member described it, but I will repeat: that is the most generic and abstract kind of question. If the member gives me a proper, substantive question, I will answer it.

Question No. 9 to Minister—Amended Answer

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I seek leave to correct an answer.

Hon Members: Oh!

SPEAKER: Right, those members that made a noise during a point of order from my left—stand. You will in unison withdraw and apologise.

Hon Members: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, I think in the reference to the decline in the populations in the Southland stream I said the decline had been 99 percent. I’m just reading the article in more detail—it’s 98 percent in the pools and 84 percent in the riffles.

Question No. 11 to Minister

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): I seek leave to table a Parliamentary Library request that shows there’s over 1 million 15- to 29-year-olds in New Zealand.

SPEAKER: I think you probably seek leave to table an answer rather than a request—is that right? Yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, no—I say to the Acting Prime Minister that at the moment, we have a leave request for the tabling of a document from the Parliamentary Library. That is not a matter which is to be debated. Members, if they don’t want to have that document tabled have a very clear course of action. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is objection.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is that there are probably just over 600,000 people of that age description, not the figure he pretends to put to this House, and he would have been in serious trouble if he had successfully got the motion forward. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, I’m not having any more. Frankly, that was not helpful, Acting Prime Minister. That was not helpful. We had a matter, it was dealt with; the Acting Prime Minister attempted to take a point of order which I ruled was outside what should be done, and after the matter had been dealt with, we had another point of order which was not a point of order; it was a debating point. The member may well be right, and he will have an opportunity, if he wishes, to take a call during the general debate and to make a debating point, and that is the right time to do it.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

I say what an absolutely fantastic time it is to be in this coalition Government; this Government, made up of three hard-working, deeply principled parties—the Labour Party, New Zealand First, and the Green Party—and taking on the long-neglected, very hard task of putting in place change, transformation, but, most importantly, improvement for the lives of every New Zealander. We’ve had nine years of neglect and harm and, frankly, destruction of the interests of far too many New Zealanders. It was time to turn the ship around, and boy is it happening. Boy, is this Government making a great difference. So let me count the ways, because what I’m going to talk about is the difference between the good old-fashioned conservatives who bury their heads in the sand and hope nothing will change while the rest of the world around them deteriorates and declines and people are worse off, compared to this Government which is progressive, sensible, thoughtful, inclusive, exchanging, and actually making a positive difference.

Let’s look at what’s happening in education. Now, that’s a long list so I’m not going to say everything, but it is an amazing list of change: bringing our education system and our education institutions well into the 21st century—and long overdue—funding school rebuilds, creating good learning environments for the next generation, creating an effective assessment and qualification regime, making sure that our young people passing through our education system have the skills for the future: the intellectual thinking and creative skills and the practical skills that go with it as well.

What a great thing that, finally, in the 21st century, finally, in 2019, there is a commitment to put New Zealand history at the heart of our curriculum. That was a bold move by a Prime Minister who loves her country—absolutely committed to the next generation—and a country now truly on the journey to reconcile itself to all of its past, all of its history, so that we all get to face the future with confidence. Also, we are fixing the barriers to equality of opportunity in our education system by putting more money into our schools so we don’t have to tap the parents, in many cases of the poorest communities, to prop up the education system; getting rid of those so-called voluntary donations—that’s going to make a huge difference—and putting lunch in schools.

Now, we can’t do everything at once and we can’t put it into every school straight away, but we can make a big difference—all of that stuff. And here’s the clincher: doing something, properly, about vocational education, actually restoring the place of our polytechs, giving the Industry Training Organisations a real job to do of working with industry and employers to make sure that our employment community, employer community, and the business community have the future stream of skills that they need because they’ve been asking it for years. They’ve been asking for that for ages.

In health, we’re starting to restore the infrastructure of that most vital social service, and this year, the biggest investment in one of the areas crying out for attention—mental health and addiction; the curse of the age. We need more support, people need more support, and they’re going to get it.

All of this while, at the same time, working on an economic development strategy—there actually is a strategy, a plan, to increase productivity, increase investment in the things that really make a difference. Through the champion of the regions, the Hon Shane Jones, actually giving life back to the regions again—which proves that, like any good Government, you can actually work with compassion, you can actually look after people, including the most vulnerable, and you can add to the nation’s wealth. That’s what responsible, balanced, progressive Governments do, not like what the last lot did—neglect, ignore, let things deteriorate and leave it for the next Government to have to patch up, which is what we’re doing.

Then you look at housing—one of the hardest and most challenging issues that any Government has to deal with, particularly after the years of neglect that we’ve had. We’ve taken it on, a hard issue, because this is a Government that is not afraid or shy of taking on the most challenging, the hardest issues. If we don’t get it right once, we’ll come back again, because we cannot give up on such a vital area. The first Labour Government was defined by what it did in housing; this Government’s going to be defined on what it adds to the livelihoods of people. That is the difference between this side of the House and that side of the House, because what they’ve demonstrated in the last week—because they can’t stop talking about the Labour Party—is that they stand for nothing. They certainly don’t stand for a positive, wholesome vision for the future of New Zealand.

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. There’s a relatively short list, actually, of attributes that that member was trying to give to his coalition Government. Did we notice they now miss out “open and transparent”? So they no longer list “open and transparent” as attributes that they would put to this coalition Government.

Earlier this week, the Prime Minister announced that Maria Dew QC will conduct an inquiry into the substance of serious allegations involving one of the Prime Minister’s own former staff members. At the same time, the Prime Minister advised that the Labour Party’s own lawyers, Kensington Swan, had nearly completed a piece of work on whether the Labour party behaved appropriately in the handling of complaints. We were told by the Prime Minister in her post-Cabinet press conference that the Dew inquiry would not look at what the Labour Party did with the complaints when they were received, nor the handling of them—that she actually wanted to concentrate on the complaints themselves and make sure that the victims, and, I think, the alleged, actually got a fair process. And, actually, I agree with that. I think that they deserve to have that process actually seen in its own context of what it is.

We were then told that the Kensington Swan review would be based on documents rather than testimonial interviews, and later on, after a question, again she stated that it would be paper only. So, effectively, the party is getting its own lawyers to look at itself, not talking to any of the victims, nor the people they spoke to—basically, do it all on the documents, which, quite frankly, evidence to date suggests it’s fairly dubious within the Labour Party as to how they look at documents. How can you take a review seriously if it actually excludes talking to the very people who played a part in this whole saga?

So why won’t the Kensington Swan review conduct interviews? Well, if they conducted interviews, they would have to speak to Grant Robertson, because it’s become very evident that he knows something that’s been going on. We’ve said before that there are deep alliances within him. In fact, it’s said that the alleged perpetrator works in his electorate as one of his volunteers on his executive. He doesn’t want to have to answer questions because he would have to tell the whole truth, and so it is—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon PAULA BENNETT: —avoid, avoid, avoid. “Whole”, I did say, Mr Speaker. In the others, well, he says that he can’t say what’s going on because he’s protecting privacy, after the complainants have already gone out publicly—so whose privacy is he protecting?

Also, the Kensington Swan review will not look at senior staffers that we know the victims have said they have spoken to and they have gone to. So there is no way any of that will be covered in the Kensington Swan review. That is already, effectively, done, and now the only other next stage of that is to actually take it to an independent reviewer that looks at it. But we don’t know if there were terms of reference, what they might have been, or what they covered. What we do know is it’s paper only and it’s documents that may have been emailed, but it’s not actually getting to the heart of who knew what, when, and how that should actually be covered.

We also heard from the Prime Minister on Monday that Maria Dew had said that her review would take four weeks. Given she was apparently appointed five weeks ago and it’s only been in the last few days that they’ve agreed to the terms of reference, I think we should start taking some bets in this House—and I’m sure the gallery might even want to join in—on the actual day that that might be dropped.

Marja Lubeck: Shameful! Shameful! Taking bets on victims!

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I’m thinking—what?—the week before Christmas or the week of Christmas, yeah? I’m thinking that maybe they’ll sort of make sure that it’s around a time like that so that they can actually hide from it. The member that’s shouting out “Shame” should, because shame on the Labour Party for how they have actually handled this and how they have actually dealt with it.

I was really disappointed to see media reports earlier this week that some complainants had raised concerns that a witch-hunt is still under way. I can only imagine their fear, their trauma, and their vulnerability. The Prime Minister has said that that will not be happening from staff in her office—that that will not be happening from members of Parliament and from Labour. I only hope that, actually, they have all heard that.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): For Mr Doocey’s benefit, the profile demographics 2018 have the age group he spoke about being 605,630. That figure was not in his question, but he went on regardless, the uninformed questioner that he is.

But as for Paula Bennett, can I say this: in 2017, the Hon Paul Goldsmith was approached by a concerned parent. Their 13-year-old child had been contacted on Snapchat by a colleague of Mr Goldsmith. Without their parents’ consent or a teacher’s consent, that member of Parliament organised a meeting with that child in after-school hours. What did Mr Goldsmith do? Nothing. What did Paula Bennett do? Nothing—gets up in this House in a posturing example of Cant and a word that begins with “h”, as if she gives a tinker’s damn.

Who was it that said on tape to Jami-Lee Ross, “I can find more women with complaints if you want.”? Paula Bennett. Paula Bennett, can I ask: where is the National Party’s review into its bullying behaviour? Is that public? Can I ask Paula Bennett: were any women among the National Party caucus MPs actually consulted during the review? No, they were not. And here she has been posing day after day, week after week—their very worst example, the very worst person they could have chosen to pose in the way she has—and she’s not going to get away with it.

Can I just say very clearly: where is the victim-centred approach that was applied where the National Party was concerned—or, dare I say, where Mr Bishop was concerned, on Snapchat. Not a mutter, not a murmur; not a syllable, not a sound. This is the day of facts, not vile rumour and unintellectual, illegal nonsense.

You know, Paula Bennett, when the review comes out, we’re going to find out just how incompetent she is to be even a deputy leader of any political party. She can’t even understand chronological evidence. She doesn’t understand that a witness has got to be a witness; it cannot be third-hand and it cannot be hearsay and it cannot be by rumour. But no, no—she’s touted that day in and day out in this House, and after this great sham—dare I say it, with my friends in the media—they’ve run this nonsense. It’s a disgrace to a whole lot of innocent people.

Now, can I just say, you know, it was actually staggering. It was actually staggering when I was away to actually see an interview on Chinese television by a man called Simon Bridges. It was so staggering because I belong to a country that for all these decades, and down through the years—since 1854 and even earlier—has been a democracy, believes in the rule of law, believes in protection, not persecution, by Government, believes in fairness and equality, and, dare I say it, is a model of transparency. We believe, of course, that that is the New Zealand that, across the party divide, we thought we stood for.

You know, I look back to people like Hamilton and Holland and Holyoake and, dare I say it, Marshall and Muldoon—all who subscribe to that. Yet if they had heard that interview on Chinese TV, they’d have been turning in their graves. I have never heard such obsequious, subservient, grovelling, kowtowing cap-doffing, palm-kissing nonsense. You have to understand it. He says, “Well, the discussion I had with both the members of the Communist Party of China and the Government is that political parties are incredibly important to the running of the country.” Mr Bridges, there’s only one political party in China. Don’t you know that? I mean, here’s the leader of a party who wants to be the alternative Prime Minister—doesn’t even know the most fundamental thing. And then, of course, he got the example all confused. He was talking about a cherry and a watermelon, except that the cherry and watermelon is not President Xi’s example; it’s John Key’s—it’s John Key’s. I know why it’s John Key’s and it’s not the President Xi’s, because before he got to President Xi, he used the same example of the cherry and the watermelon in India on his way there. What an amateur, let loose on an international stage—unbelievable. He said this. You know, as Robert Ayson, a recent foreign policy expert, said, he is “partying like it’s 2008”. Let me tell you it is not 2008; it’s 2019, and we live in very dangerous and different times.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you. It’s an honour to follow the Prime Minister. Two weeks ago, the Government launched a document called Action for healthy waterways, and we’re proud of that document. It is a discussion document that lays out a number of proposals that we hope will restore the reputation of New Zealand for having pristine—not pristine; that’s unfair: having good, healthy waterways throughout our country, and healthy beaches. It puts pressure on rural and urban people in this country to do their bit to try and clean up the waterways.

I’m not a farmer at the moment—I wouldn’t call 20 acres a farm—but I have been a farmer, a sharemilker, and the one thing that really irks me is that on that side of the House, the party that claimed to be the champion of farmers has spent the last two weeks discrediting farmers up and down this country. They have said that this will be the ruination of farmers, they’ll have to walk off the land, this is going to cost them a fortune—implying that every single farmer in New Zealand is going to have to spend a fortune to do this. Well, they are wrong, because there’s a huge number of farmers in this country doing the right thing. They won’t have to spend money. There are some that will, and some that are doing the right thing, because we do have some environmental challenges ahead of us.

Can I just make one quote by an aspiring young leader: “One of the big long-term challenges we face is protecting the environment … We can have a world-class economy and the prosperity to pay for education, hospitals, infrastructure, social services and care for our vulnerable. But none of that is worthwhile if we haven’t protected the natural environment as well.” That aspiring young leader in 2018 was Simon Bridges—Simon Bridges. Well, I wish you’d carry out and follow through on that in Opposition, because your bleating, along with Federated Farmers and others, to oppose what we are putting up here as a discussion document, is a reflection—and an inaccurate reflection—on every farmer in this country.

Can I quote from those farmers—a couple of them—that are doing the right thing, and I thank each and every one of them. We do appreciate it, and a couple have come out in the media recently. One Christopher Falconer—he’s from, I think, the Waikato somewhere, and he says, “I don’t make climate-change based decisions on what we do on-farm. I don’t. But as it happens, there’s a great deal of overlap between what is good for the climate, and what is good for all sorts of other things.” This is the kind of healthy new-generation thinking that we are seeing right through the farming community in our country. They’re getting on and doing the right thing because they know it’s good. “Breeding [better] cows that produce milk more efficiently is another tick. That’s great for your farm system … it’s also great for climate … because it’s less cows, producing the same amount of product.” Can I quote from him again? “This is almost like collateral good that goes with so many of the things that are good with your farm.” He comes from the north Waikato. Thank you for fronting up and telling the people of New Zealand who don’t live on a farm the good things that are happening. I doubt whether Mr Falconer is going to have to spend a hell of a lot of money at all. He spent $250,000 on an effluent system. “We’re still producing the same amount of milk, so we’ve got more efficient.” That is the kind of approach that we want to see across the farming system.

There’s another one, and I’d like to acknowledge the important work and, as I say, of standing up—Becks and Richard Tosswill. Farming with their children, right? Great people. Yep. “They have retired areas unsuited to stock and have planted over 28,000 trees” on their property. “They use GPS co-ordinates to pinpoint where they need fertiliser and other areas, like waterways, where they need to avoid using fertiliser. ‘We use technology day-to-day, to give us the best advice and help us make the best decisions, which ultimately have a positive impact on our environment and climate change.’ ”

These are the kinds of new-generation farmers that we need to learn more from. We need to share their wisdom, advice—not go around the country saying, as the National Party and Federated Farmers are saying, that this proposal to clean up our waterways is going to destroy agriculture. That is far from the truth, because the vast majority of farmers are on that path—they’re moving down that path. They want clarity, which they did not get from the last Government. The two things that Federated Farmers and the National Party campaigned against were a fart tax—and they got an emissions trading scheme—and against National Animal Identification and Tracing, and we’ve had hundreds of millions of dollars of expenditure because we haven’t had traceability. That’s the kind of vision of this National Party and Federated Farmers organisation that we have.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. On Friday next week, thousands of schoolchildren will come to the forecourt of Parliament to protest for stronger climate action. Rangatahi will fill the sidewalks and the streets of this country, marching to their town centres to ask adults to grow up and do their job. Our job is to protect our kids. We say that we are protecting our kids when we slap R18 labels on things they should not watch, they should not listen to, and they should not do. We say we are protecting our children when we compel them into the education system and when we punish their bad behaviour. We raise our kids according to ideas that we as a society share about what’s acceptable. But our ideas shift and change; the natural laws of physics, not so much. While we prohibit children, young people, from engaging in our political realm, with the mainstream wisdom to belittle their engagement as they do not yet know enough about life, science does not have an age barrier.

The science is clear—the science is clear—yet somehow it’s framed as anywhere from boring to hysterical and apocalyptic to talk about the reality if we do not limit global warming to 1.5 degrees. The hare-brained short-term goals of day-to-day politics cannot compute the reality of the end of this world as we know it.

And when National Party MP Marilyn Waring brought about a snap election in 1984 by crossing the floor of this Parliament to join with the Labour Opposition, my dad was 14 years old, and the issue was painted as black and white. It was about nuclear or no nuclear. But with climate change we don’t have that simple binary. Humans have already pumped so many emissions into our atmosphere that we are going to have to deal with the consequences, and the only decision left is where we cap those consequences. So the question really is: just how hard do we want to make the lives of our kids? What actually happens when our kids and scientists are saying exactly the same thing? When do we look in the mirror and realise that we are the ones standing in the way?

If I have learnt anything in my nearly two years in Parliament, it’s that science and politics are barely ever compatible. I have sat on the Environment Committee, as actually every major party in this House has, and we have listened to over a thousand submissions from the general public and vested interests on our pathway to carbon neutrality. A whole lot of people want to see greater political will and greater ambition, more recognition of the science, but they have questioned whether our politics is up to it.

The Opposition National Party continue to say that they want the science, particularly when it comes to setting out 2050 biogenic methane targets. Well, let’s get the science and let’s be bound by it. Science isn’t about convenience, and here the science is actually rather inconvenient. In the newspaper today, National Party MP the Hon Dr Nick Smith said, and I quote, “It is far too easy for politicians to promise what will happen in 40 years’ time when they know full well they aren’t going to be anywhere near government then.” If anything, it would seem that’s political consensus: that you cannot trust politicians when it comes to climate action. So let’s end the politicising of science. With the zero carbon bill, many people have urged the Environment Committee to empower the independent climate commission to automatically set binding emissions budgets on a five-yearly basis. The only arguments that exist against doing this is that politicians, ourselves or others, in the future might not want to comply with science, and that’s not good enough.

So, National, here is the opportunity. My dad was 14 years old when Marilyn Waring crossed the floor to trigger our nuclear-free moment. My little brother is twelve years old and nobody should be crossing the floor on this issue, which is actually far more clear-cut than one of opinion or one of values. This is an issue of science, and here pretty much every single New Zealander has asked us to grow up and stand together. Kia ora.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. What is clear is a level of growing frustration around New Zealand at a Government that is in complete shambles and chaos. As the Prime Minister departs to go offshore, she leaves behind a Government that is in complete chaos and people in New Zealand frustrated with a Government that is not responding and not managing the issues that are important to them.

Look at the fiasco we had today around vaccines for the measles outbreaks. How many anxious parents are there around New Zealand looking for the Government to respond and show leadership? The Associate Minister of Health, Julie Anne Genter, said very clearly in the last few days that the new intake of vaccines of 52,000 was enough to last till the end of the year. Well, if that is true why was their announcement of 100,000 today? Clearly, it was because what she said was not correct, and we knew it wasn’t correct because the maths did not add up. We’ve distributed 54,000 vaccines this month alone. How were 52,000 vaccines going to last till January?

And what’s the most cynical part of the story? It is that the PR to announce the 100,000 vaccines from the Ministry of Health was sent out at 2.38 p.m. today, during question time. They’ve been caught out. Their maths doesn’t add up. And then, just to add insult to injury, the Rt Hon Winston Peters gets up and doesn’t believe we have one million 15- to 29-year-olds in New Zealand. Well, he’s right in one way, because it’s actually 1,013,750. I know he wants to take us back to the Muldoon era of the 1970s. He gets up and says there’s only 600,000 15- to 29-year-old New Zealanders alive.

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

MATT DOOCEY: What generation does this Government live in? What generation, when you think there’s only 600,000 15- to 29-year-olds in New Zealand. And then they block the tabling of the document from the Parliamentary Library—

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member knows he can’t refer to those decisions. Well, maybe he doesn’t. He does now.

MATT DOOCEY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. So here we have an absolute shambles for an important issue, and many parents around New Zealand will be appalled to know that the Government is incompetent in delivering lifesaving vaccines for vulnerable young New Zealanders.

But we know they are a Government where the numbers don’t stack up. And that’s a frustration that New Zealanders are saying to us out on the streets of New Zealand. When you see things like the lack of investment—and this is the problem with the shambles in the beltway we have in New Zealand at the moment—how that impacts on regional and provincial New Zealand. Look, an example in my electorate: the Government came in and cancelled the much needed Belfast to Pegasus motorway, including the Woodend bypass. They just scrapped it. You know, you’ve got a State highway where parents take their primary school students across a State highway to the school, and there’s not even a pedestrian crossing. This Government comes in, cancels that motorway, but then they say, “Hold on. What we’re going to do is have a safety improvement programme.”

Yet we had a public meeting in the last few weeks with the head of the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) for the South Island. The safety improvement programme that they’ve had three consultations on now in the last two years is going to take up to four years to roll out—but wait, there’s no guarantee of funding. NZTA says their budget is oversubscribed. That’s the desperation round regional and provincial New Zealand. Why? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! One speaker at a time.

MATT DOOCEY: Because this Government stripped $5.5 billion out of State highway funding—vital transport infrastructure into the regions. No wonder people around New Zealand are frustrated, because decisions made in the beltway of New Zealand are being effected in the provinces. Vaccines, health, vital roading infrastructure, transport—they’re the real issues that affect New Zealanders. And so, as the Prime Minister takes off next week, she leaves behind a Government—a shambolic Government—that is not responding to the real domestic issues facing New Zealanders and New Zealand.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): If there is a shambles in the beltway, I say that it is on that side of the House, which could only be characterised as an “evidence-free zone”, where, if they don’t know something, they just pluck a number out of the air and use it. So I think that it’s time to set the record straight with some evidence as to what is being done on this side of the House to make this country better for all New Zealanders. I have some real numbers.

Let’s start with this number: 2,206—2,206—new State houses that have been built in the two years that we have been in Government. That’s 1,103 a year. And how does that compare to what was done when that other party was in Government? In the nine years that party was in Government, they built 338 State houses—338 State houses. That’s 37.5 State houses a year. In fact, let’s put it in perspective: we are building 122 times as many State houses as they ever did when they were in Government. That’s the attention to the real needs of New Zealanders. That’s the evidence of a Government that is working hard for all New Zealanders.

That’s not the only thing we have done in the housing space. We have banned offshore speculators. We have extended the brightline test to five years. We’ve gotten rid of unfair letting fees. We’ve gotten rid of the tax breaks around rental properties. And what effect has that had? Well, it’s working. House prices are now stable. They are rising for the first time in many, many years. They are rising slower than rent. We are starting to make sure that housing is affordable. That’s the evidence of a Government that is taking action.

It’s not the only space where we are taking action. We are taking action on mental health. We’ve set up the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission. They got rid of the Mental Health Commissioner in 2012; we have replaced it. We’ve established a suicide prevention office. We’ve put in place a mental health care package that ensures that 170,000 New Zealanders will be able to access mental health care at their doctor.

Moving on from mental health, let’s try education. We have at last—at long last—established that New Zealand history will be taught in all schools. We are putting more operating money into the schools, and we are doing that through a policy that ensures that parents no longer have to dip into their own pockets to support schools, because we are funding schools’ properties. That’s what our donations policy does. We’ve gotten teachers wages up. We’ve got new classrooms for 100,000 children. We are establishing 600 positions for SENCOs—special educational needs coordinators—to ensure that children who have special learning needs get supported. We are developing prototypes for getting free lunches into all schools, starting in 30 schools next year and developing the prototypes, and in time we’ll be rolling it out. That’s the kind of action on this side of the House.

When it comes to child poverty, we have established legislation that ensures that we will measure and report on child poverty—legislation that was agreed to by 119 members of this House. We have actually supported families in need by ensuring that we increase their incomes by increasing the money they get. We’ve done that through our Families Package so that 384,000 families with children are better off. We’ve established the winter energy payment. The list goes on and on. And this comes to us because of the inspirational leadership of our Prime Minister.

We have heard so much criticism of our Prime Minister telling people that she achieves nothing—that the Christchurch Call is just so much hot air. But the Christchurch Call has taken effect. We have seen that today: when Facebook itself is taking moves to ban violent extremism. And here’s what Facebook itself said as to why it was doing this. It said, “To honour the Christchurch Call To Action made by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, we have announced restrictions on Facebook Live and the investment of $7.5 million in new research partnerships … designed to improve image and video analysis technology.” They are supporting the call. Why that call? Because they want to ban online extremism, and they are doing it because our Prime Minister, our inspirational leader, stood up on the world stage and had the courage to make that call.

This is a Government that is taking real action and is achieving right across the board. We are delivering for New Zealanders, and we are delivering for the world. I am so proud to be part of this Government.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a great pleasure to rise in this general debate and actually maybe put some facts into the debate. One of the things that that member Dr Deborah Russell mentioned was that she is very proud of this Government’s record on the world stage. Let me actually put that notion to bed. The Prime Minister, when she was speaking at the UN, talked about how the Me Too movement should be a “We Too” movement. Last week, I think the Prime Minister actually admitted that that was the first time that she had heard about the sexual assault issue that involved a staff member who was actually at her office. I think, you know, either she is incompetent or she is just not interested in what is actually going on.

Deborah Russell talked about leadership. I think it is not just about the words that a leader speaks but the actions that she actually takes. Often when she is asked about what is going on in this country, she blames the nine years of the previous National Government or the world issues that are impacting it. Let me say that, actually, during the nine years of the National Government, we had major disasters. We had earthquakes in Christchurch, earthquakes in Kaikōura. We had the global financial crisis, but what we left this country with was 4 percent growth in the economy. What this Government has actually done in the last two years is chop that in half. The economy is not growing that fast. It’s actually tanking. It’s going downwards, and this Government seems to be very proud of the performance.

Let me talk about some of the leadership issues. The Prime Minister talked about the fairness, the diversity that she is really, really proud of. Apparently, that doesn’t actually translate into the actions that she provides. In the Government’s Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, we were asking questions about how much diversity actually exists in her Prime Minister’s department. Apparently, 82 percent of the staff that work in the DPMC is Pākehā, 1.17 percent is Pacific Islander, and 1.5 percent is Asian. I say that 1.5 percent of New Zealand’s population isn’t actually Asian, and 1.17 percent is actually not Pacific Islander in terms of population. If she was talking about real diversity in her own department, she would be changing that issue. Apparently, 100 percent of senior staffers, management staff, in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is in fact Pākehā and not of other ethnicities.

Earlier, my learned colleague Matt Doocey talked about measles. It was actually asked as a parliamentary question as well today, and I got up to ask a supplementary question. There is a huge issue. There is an epidemic in this country, and the Minister can only talk about how we have enough supply. Well, apparently her priority is actually children. One of the questions that I asked in the supplementary was about the fact that the priority is definitely not children when you happen to be of Asian descent, it seems, because in Auckland when Asian parents—some of them have actually contacted me—go to the doctor wanting to vaccinate their children, they are turned away even when they want to pay for the vaccinations, because they don’t actually have the supply.

Those are prioritised for Māori and Pacific children. So I asked a question of this Government: are they really going down the path of the racist policies that they’ve—actually, an example that I can give you is the whole issue of Asian-sounding names, in terms of the ability to buy a house. Apparently, Asian people—Asian-sounding names—were the reason why house prices were going up. They blamed the Asian people. Denise Lee sounds like an Asian name—certainly not Asian, or Chinese, sorry. Melissa Lee sounds like Chinese. I’m certainly not Chinese, and to the Malaysian-Chinese parents of those children who went to the GP’s office to get their children vaccinated, who were turned away because they weren’t Māori or Pasifika, apparently they’re not a priority.

After the question, the Minister came and sat next to me, and admitted that that should not happen. Perhaps she should let her officials know that that should not be happening in this country—a system that presumes, that prioritises certain children—and say that New Zealanders of all races, all ages should be equal. Well, it seems they’re not, if they happen to be Asian. I say shame on this Government. Shame on this Labour-led Government, who say, “Asian people are not welcome in this country”, it seems. Well, I say shame. Apart from the measles epidemic, I mean, I think Deborah Russell talked about—

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. What a marvellous time it is to be in Government. What a marvellous privilege it is to be a member of one of the three parties that are supporting this Government, that is delivering on addressing the long-term challenges that are facing this country. You know, there’s one rule in politics that’s always true: it’s cyclical. If you can’t learn from the mistakes of the past, you’ll never evolve and succeed in the future. That is a lesson that the National Party are not taking on board at the moment. For nine years, they were in Government, and they saw the Labour Party struggle to go up in the polls, and they are repeating the same mistakes that we made, because they are negative—they are negative and they are inward-looking.

We learnt from that, and now we’re in Government, and what are they doing? Sitting there, and whingeing, and wishing things were different. But the fact is that their scaremongering and their empty words are not ringing true. You only need to look in the regional areas of this country to see how things are not living up to what the National Party are saying. Primary exports: up $9 billion. But if you listen to the National Party, there’s no future in agriculture—a 36.3 percent increase in dairy, a 34.8 percent increase in forestry, a 22.2 percent increase in horticulture, 11 percent in seafood, and 10.5 percent in meat and wool. So much for a dying industry. These are the facts—the facts are that rural New Zealand is thriving under this Government, and the only playbook that the National Party can even consider doing is whingeing.

They could get behind this Government’s approach to cleaning up our rivers, because there is a clear economic argument to do so when New Zealand depends on, overseas, the most discerning consumers to buy our products. The only way in which we can increase the value that we expect and want to extract from our products is to live up to demand. They demand environmental sustainability. They demand that their products are coming from a country that is doing their bit to address climate change. They expect high nutritional, and safe, food. They expect animal welfare standards to be the best in the world, and they expect the industry to look after their staff. In every single one of these areas, this Government is delivering, and what do they say? “This is bad news”.

That is the negative approach of the National Party. They cannot see—at the moment, anyway. They’ve changed their tune—now that the proposals that this Government is making are going to ensure the long-term sustainability of agriculture in this country. I say they’ve changed their tune, because I see a quote here from their now agricultural spokesperson Todd Muller, who says, and I quote, “My view is that there is a waste product that we can easily reduce, reuse, or recycle in some shape or form to help drive an environmentally sustainable economy”. It was important to them then, but not so much now. He continues: “We should be striving to do so. That is what responsible economic and environmental stewardship is all about”.

Why—I ask why—when they were in Government were they saying these sorts of things, and now, when we’re in Government, and they’re our ideas, they’re opposing them? Why? Because they are barking up the wrong tree and chasing every car that’s passing. We’ve seen it today in the general debate, the things that they’re talking about. They’re not focussing on the long-term challenges that are facing this country. Their commitment to this conservative political approach, and the desire to maintain the status quo, will not deliver for rural communities. It will not deliver for agriculture.

Both my grandfathers farmed in Eketāhuna. One was Labour and one was National. When I told them, as a young man, that I was interested in politics, they both said the same thing: “Make sure you look after the farmers and the communities that they live in.” That’s a true story. But what this shows is that, regardless of what colour you are, you can have the same aspiration, and people that live in rural areas, and farmers, know that the proposals that we’re making are for their long-term economic sustainability. They know that the National Party, with all their claims, and all the hyperbole, are just simply yelling into a void. It’s not resonating. People do not like negativity. That was a lesson that we learnt. It is clearly a lesson that National has never learnt thus far, and I suspect they will not learn it anytime soon.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m sure it won’t have been lost on the three New Zealanders who were still listening at the end of Mr McAnulty’s contribution that he began by telling us that he didn’t like whingers, and he then spent five minutes doing nothing but.

Residents of my fine city have long known, and visitors to our town quickly come to discover, that Hamilton is the most desirable city in our country. I’m pleased to say that we are still doing very well, thanks to the fact that our citizens work hard, they see great opportunities, and we’ve got a steady influx of people coming from around the country, wanting to share what we have, and live there. But my constituents are noticing that their great efforts are not being matched by the Government’s.

We had, at the beginning of the year, the Prime Minister telling us that this would be the year of delivery. Well, it has been anything but. Sadly, because it’s not very funny, what has become very, very clear is that, despite their good intentions—and it is very clear that the Labour Party campaign slogan next year will be, “Well, it was the thought that counts”—they are all utterly out of their depths, and haven’t a clue about what they are doing. Today, Mr Little began this debate by crowing about the so-called achievements of his Government, but couldn’t really name any. He really spent most of his time just attacking us on the other side.

Well, let us look at what has happened. We’ve had KiwiBuild abandoned, and its Minister sacked, because it was such an abject failure. They didn’t even get close to starting meeting their targets. The Ministry of Health recently published its 2018-19 quarter three health target data file on its website. It came, pretty much, quite a few months later than was expected—there’s a story about that as well—and it showed that the health sector has been going steadily backwards in the time that David Clark has been the Minister. Importantly, we’ve seen elective surgeries going backwards. We’ve seen vaccination rates falling behind, despite the fact that, at the moment, we have a major epidemic around the country, particularly in my part of the country, and north of there, with measles. No wonder the escalation is happening if the Government can’t get on top of vaccination rates. We’ve got 17 of the 20 DHBs showing poor immunisation rates since before he became the Minister, and 13 of them showing poorer performances against the faster cancer treatment targets.

The National Party, when we were in office, pledged to increase police numbers and we were doing that. Labour came along and said “Oh, anything you can do, we can do better”, but they haven’t. They haven’t got close to delivering on what they promised. Their gun buy-back scheme is, increasingly, raising concern around our communities. Good, law-abiding people are doing as expected, but what we are seeing is that the gangs and others, who we definitely don’t want having firearms in their possession, are not fronting up to the buy-back opportunities, and we should all be deeply worried about that, because the Government hasn’t got a clue how they’re going to sort that out.

Now, Mr Speaker, Hamilton West, as you know, is an urban electorate, but we do provide vital services—particularly to the dairy industry—and we definitely appreciate that farming has long been the backbone of our economy. Well, inexplicably, it’s becoming clearer by the day that the Labour Party hates farmers. This Government is determined to impose methane emissions reduction targets on our farmers that aren’t supported by science, that are not those which are being recommended by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment—they’re far higher than he is suggesting—and that, if adopted, will simply drive our vital food production offshore to less efficient, less emissions - friendly countries, and, at the same time, this Government wants to hammer our primary sector and damage our collective livelihood with freshwater proposals that ignore the steady improvement we’ve been seeing in our waterways which began under National, and which will impose huge costs with no economic analysis and which are causing huge anxiety in the farming sector. That feeling of anxiety is palpable, and when I sat on the environment subcommittee in Hamilton a couple of weeks ago, I became aware of just how widespread the distress is.

We had a Budget earlier this year that was utterly underwhelming. It promised to deliver wellbeing, but it actually has delivered very little. The first bill that they passed—under urgency, of course—was another fuel tax increase. They are great at the tax idea. They’re great at announcing, with a big head of steam, that they’re going to spend money on this, that, and the other, but they have not been delivering. They do not have a plan for what they are supposed to be doing. They haven’t a clue how to govern the country, and I look forward to this time next year, when the country will, quite rightly, be throwing them out on their ear.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. It’s an absolute privilege to stand and speak in this House of New Zealand lawmaking debates. First of all, I want to acknowledge the passing of the Tongan Prime Minister, and I’d like to do that in the Tongan language. Fakafolau atu heni ‘eku faka‘apa‘apa mo e fie kaungā mamahi ki he taufa kuo tō ‘i he fonua ‘o Tupou. ‘Ofa lahi atu ki he kāingá hono kotoa.

I would have loved to attend the funeral in Tonga, but there is a Tongan saying that says “Ko e lava pē ‘a ‘Ulukālalá ko e lava ia ‘a Vava‘u Lahí.” Our Tongan saying is about Vava‘u, which is the biggest island in Tonga. ‘Ulukālala is its highest chief. When ‘Ulukālala is satisfied, so is the rest of Vava‘u. So I want to acknowledge the leadership of the Hon Jenny Salesa and the respective parties who are representing our country and showing our respect as a loving neighbour to the country of Tonga, which is where I was born.

But let me come back to this House. I have sat here through the speeches, and all I’ve heard from speaker number one was conspiracy theory number one. Paula Bennett—conspiracy theory. Instead of going to those authorities, she conspired to go to the media. Two, Matt Doocey, who is supposed to be the leading champion of mental health for the National Party, had a conspiracy theory about Labour doing nothing—about Labour and this coalition Government doing nothing. Three, Melissa Lee talked about conspiracy theory number three, about National delivering—I don’t know; I couldn’t remember—and, fourth, the member for Hamilton West. He started well when he spoke about the people of Hamilton West, but after that it was conspiracy theory number four.

The kūmara doesn’t speak of its sweetness, so I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the New Zealander of the Year for 2019, Mike King, and what Mike King said about the Labour Government. He said “nine years of lip service and … nothing.”, about the National Government. He said, “this Government did in two years what the last Government didn’t do in nine years.” So all the conspiracy theories that were said on the other side in the first four speeches were about National delivering nothing, delivering no plan. They have stood there all day today and have not set out a future for what National’s going to do for New Zealand when they get in, whenever. Actually, if you generalise their statements, they spoke about nothing, nothing—delivering nothing. One could say that’s a lazy Opposition.

Anyway, I was so privileged on Thursday to be at the unveiling of that plaque that acknowledges the New Zealand Wars, and I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge you, Mr Speaker, because it takes leadership and understanding to achieve that. I want to say kia ora, malo ‘aupito, thank you, Mr Speaker, for your guidance in that.

It would be great if, as the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern—whose leadership I’m privileged to be under—said, we were to be the last generation to grow up in this country not knowing our history, because we announced last week that from 2022, New Zealand history will be taught in all schools and kura. It’s been a long time coming, and we are proud to finally make our stories a formal part of the curriculum. I do hope that the story of Kuramārōtini, Kupe’s wife, who actually saw New Zealand and named us Aotearoa—I do hope that the leadership of women is also told in our history. I hope that all the grandchildren are privileged from having that.

Also, I’m glad to say that we’re putting the free into education. We are funding more decile 1 to 8 schools with school donations—adding additional donations into that—and the reason why it’s decile 1 to 8 is because it’s much needed. It’s much needed in that community. The deciles 9 and 10 schools actually said that they have more in school donations than they would have under what the Government is proposing. The reason why it’s an insight and an understanding that the poorer part of our country needs a hand up to assist and what schools are now working—in the last nine years, they were on the smell of an oily rag, and they are passionate to deliver the best for New Zealand.

I’m running out of time, but I had a great proverb and I’ll use it in another kōrero. Malo ‘aupito.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): New Zealand is a great country. We are world leaders in so many areas and ways. We wish our best to the All Blacks with the Rugby World Cup coming up, and, of course, Team New Zealand—what an amazing boat they have launched. We wish them the best in defending the America’s Cup, and—

SPEAKER: Thanks for your help.

JONATHAN YOUNG: Yes, indeed. It was a great morning to be there. Even if we read in some legislation, talking about being world leaders occurs in some aspects of legislation, which I’m not so sure about. For example, if you read through the Cabinet papers on the zero carbon bill, you will read a statement that says, “Codifying the 2050 Target in primary legislation and having a detailed plan for meeting it could assist in: … ensuring New Zealand is world leading”.

We all want to be world leaders, but sometimes we have to think about how we’re going to get there and what it’s going to cost. Let me tell you about an area, members of this House, where New Zealand is world leading in terms of climate. We are the first and perhaps the only country that is leading the transition away from gas to using more coal—think about that. What we see in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s (MBIE’s) New Zealand Energy Quarterly reported not long ago was that natural gas usage for electricity generation for the year ending 30 June 2019 decreased by 19 percent. The haters of hydrocarbons will say “Fantastic! We’ve seen a decrease in the use of natural gas.”, but the same Energy Quarterly also reported that coal usage for electricity generation for the year ending 30 June 2019 increased by a whopping 62 percent. Mr Speaker, I know you enjoy commentary around the energy sector. That is a graph that I have produced from MBIE’s data.

So seeing a decrease in the use of clean-burning natural gas is, I think, a loss when you see an increase in the burning of coal, which has twice the carbon dioxide emissions. The country is using more coal because there is not enough gas—let’s be clear about that. In the midst of a primary fuel shortage—because this is what we do have in New Zealand—the Government, in their wisdom, decided to ban the search for more gas, which I disagree with. In fact, I think that was a reckless decision.

I actually think that using gas instead of coal is a better way to transition, and, in fact, MBIE said that in their advice to the Government last year, in April. They said, “Gas has a role to play in transitioning to a lower-emission economy. Halting exploration”—they went on to say—“would also close off the option of using New Zealand gas supplies to reduce coal use.” Here we see, a year later, that is exactly what is happening. I say that it was a big disappointment that we did not have that thorough advice-listening consultation process and we did not do the proper economy analysis.

A lot of people got upset about that. They got upset because they thought that they were intelligent, committed, science-based New Zealanders and companies—and even the offshore ones—who had some contribution to make. It wasn’t just an offence against their intellect, it wasn’t just an offence against democracy, but it was an offence against the solution that people could find. So single-mindedness can be an offence against a solution. This is why we have a Parliament. This is why we debate. This is why we have officials. This is why we consult. This is why we take legislation out into the community. This is why we have a select committee process. It’s so that we can find a solution that fits and works for New Zealand, and what we’re seeing now is the very thing that we don’t want to see.

Coal is not our future. Yes, it’s used at the moment because we do not have enough renewables and we have depleted gas supply. Whether that’s through infrastructure or whether that’s actually through a lack of nature resource, it’s affecting us. So what I say, in terms of this energy space, around the policy that we need to have, is we need to have a broad conversation. We need to see natural gas as a very important component to transition, and we need to see that it is supported, and we need to look for more in this country and not close off that future, which I think can lead us into a better, more sure transition. Thank you, sir.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Infrastructure): As the sponsor, in a figurative sense, of this bill, I would like to remind the committee, firstly acknowledging the efforts of the select committee and taking on board one or three remarks that were made by some of the earlier speakers—Mr McKelvie being one, who demonstrated that he is a student of the Bible, because he exhibited all the features of a doubting Thomas during that speech. But because he is a seasoned member of this House and an extremely able leader of economic matters in his own community, I only hope he goes through a Damascus-like experience and sheds that very narrow view.

However, I just remind the committee that this particular legislation might be described as having empowered a central government, independent body with substantial information-gathering powers. Why is that important? That’s important because there is a valid complaint amongst a number of the members of our civil construction sector: that as one Government is replaced by another, often the casualty is continuity in a pipeline of assured work. Now, all of us as politicians do stand and we defend the manifestos that bring us here, but once we are in the business of the State, information should trump all other considerations. This new independent body will have the ability to reach out and empower itself by drawing information from both local government and central government. Now, there was some concern that such matters might worsen the burden upon local government. Those were exaggerated, and once the law is passed, local government will obey its master, which is the sovereignty of Parliament.

On the question of whether or not there ought to be some exemptions, clause 23 does treat differently what I might figuratively call the spy service and security-related agencies. I think that’s reasonable. In terms of the protection for personal information, that’s beyond cavil. But at a deeper level, with a better quality of information and an empowered central body, we can now plan and Governments can turn to get independent advice. For example—I don’t mind saying this—we are undertaking a review of the defence estate. Some of it is in the area occasionally visited by Mr Christopher Bishop and constantly surveilled by the Leader of the House—that’s up in the Upper Hutt area. It’s not unreasonable that the Infrastructure Commission should provide a perspective as to what the best options are, going forward, if we are to renew and develop new approaches for our defence estate, because if you ask a narrow range of people a certain question, you will get a narrow response, and an independent body with the types of personalities led by Dr Alan Bollard will give us, in my view, a deep and varied set of responses.

In addition to that, Mr Goldsmith—not that I pay any attention to what he says in the ordinary course of events—in a spirit of comity suggested that when we proceed with the options for relocating the Port of Auckland, with possibly some of its activities going to the north, why would we not seek a view from the independent Waihanga body. I think that’s not a bad suggestion for him to have made—a very rare but useful suggestion, inversely related, I might say, to the number of times that he contributes to the House.

So that’s a small example of how Ministers can actually derive some confidence that this body will be relevant. It does not have mandatory powers. It will apply to local government, as I’ve said, but that is important because when one conceives one of the great infrastructure projects that lies in front of us, such as three waters, that’s purely local government and regional government business. At the level of central government, obviously, we are refining how we might deal better at a central government level with the problems that were evinced and became very clear after we came to grips with the awful situation in Hastings in terms of drinking water. So these are some key points, and I look forward to contributions from both sides of the Chamber.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to be talking on the formation of the Infrastructure Commission. As we’ve said previously, the National Party is supporting this bill, because it is very important in terms of helping New Zealand and New Zealanders to live in a better place and create the future we want.

Of course, the first part of this bill is about some of its establishment. I think the genesis of this, obviously, went back to the National Party, because we were very keen on supporting it. But I’m very grateful that the Government’s picked up this project and, obviously, with our support, is bringing it through to a conclusion.

I think the key bit is that this commission will be quite independent. I think that’s a vital part or success component if this entity is actually to help with planning infrastructure in the future and how we go about delivering that. I think that as a stand-alone autonomous Crown entity, it will have the powers and the skills—and already the board has been appointed to that—but also the independence to be able to go and do its job properly.

As I said before, infrastructure is absolutely vital to New Zealand, so how we procure it, how we deliver it, how we fund and finance it—all those aspects are absolutely essential, and I think that’s why we should, I hope, once this bill passes through the House, end up with a much better result. I think if people look at what’s going on in infrastructure, both at central government level and also at territorial or local authority or council level, it is not clear about what is the pipeline of work coming forward. There’s no real clarity around that, and, of course, we have many different types of infrastructure that’s been constructed. The Minister talked about defence. That’s certainly one issue around infrastructure, but it traverses a wide topic, including schools, education facilities, hospitals, right through to traditional road, rail, and also water and waste water, just to name few. But it’s also things like broadband fibre roll-out, which is just infrastructure of a different sort.

That pipeline means, I think, that people can actually see what’s happening and, actually, contracting parties can get a much better view on when projects are going to occur so they can plan, and that continuity is an absolutely essential part in terms of ensuring that they not only attract the right staff but train them and retain them. One of the issues, and one of the problems, we’ve got is that after the Christchurch bill, because people didn’t see a clear pipeline, particularly in civil construction and those types of infrastructure demands, a lot of our very good people have left Christchurch and actually moved to Australia where there’s an infrastructure boom happening in Victoria, New South Wales. So that pipeline is essential not only for funders and things like that but also in terms of protecting and maintaining those skill sets that are so vital if we’re going to roll out good infrastructure over the years.

I think there are a couple of things around this. One is a strategic and planning role that the commission is going to undertake, and the Minister alluded to it. Initially, the bill was focused purely on getting information from central government agencies. The committee took a view that it should be a wider jurisdiction and should also include local authorities, given that local authorities are significant procurers. By the way, central government normally procures about $43 billion a year, so having visibility around both central and local government provided a much clearer pathway in terms of projects. There was some resistance from the territorial local authorities. They said they issue lots of plans—10-year plans and 30-year plans, and they’re all available—but we didn’t think that that was sufficient. The councils, we believe, should be in a position where they provide the right sort of information to the Infrastructure Commission so they can do their job.

Then, of course, the Infrastructure Commission’s got a 30-year perspective in terms of highlighting projects over that lifespan, and indeed that’s a very, very important focus for long-term infrastructure projects, and they’re going to publish a report every five years that updates it. So it’s certainly going to be very helpful for the New Zealand context going forward.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I’m very pleased to take a call on this bill during the committee stage. It came through my select committee, where Andrew Bayly was, of course, very helpful in sorting out some aspects of the bill, as he usually is. I want to endorse the remarks made by Mr Bayly about the need for long-term planning and long-term thinking around infrastructure, and, of course, the remarks made by the Minister in the chair about our need to get away from short-term stuff—doing things in three-year cycles—and have a look at that long-term plan, and that is exactly what this Infrastructure Commission is supposed to do.

I think, in particular, looking at the first part of the bill, one of the terms that is specified is “community expectations”. It’s a defined term in the bill and will become a defined term in the Act, of course. It says that community expectations “means the expectations of the communities that use, or will use, the infrastructure or the services …” That’s obvious, I suppose in the title itself. But what’s interesting there is thinking about infrastructure not just in terms of a road, a bridge—10 bridges in Northland, or whatever. It’s thinking about it in terms of what the community needs, what the community expects, what the community understands about what the purpose of infrastructure is. It’s not roads for the sake of roads or bridges for the sake of bridges, or—

Kieran McAnulty: It is bridges for the sake of bridges.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Well, it is bridges for the sake of bridges. But it’s thinking about infrastructure in terms of the benefits or the other outcomes that result from infrastructure and services, in terms of how the services are actually delivered and the quality of them. But to me the interesting part of it is the way that the community expectations are built into the understanding in this infrastructure bill—that the Infrastructure Commission will need to understand that and think about it in terms of the way it’s got that long-term planning going on. So that’s a very interesting term to have sitting in what you might think is one of the standard Meccano-set bills we get around infrastructure.

Going on from there, although, in clause 3, “infrastructure” means “physical infrastructure that is in New Zealand …”, the Infrastructure Commission needs to focus not just on the creation of new infrastructure—and, again, this is sitting in the definition of “infrastructure project”—but also “the maintenance, upgrading, replacement, decommissioning, or removal of existing infrastructure”. So, clearly, we already have masses of schools and hospitals and roads and the like in our country already, and as it turns out, those schools and hospitals actually need maintaining. This is something that might have escaped some members of the House while they were sitting over on this side in previous years—that maintenance actually matters. But often those maintenance projects are not just short-term issues. They are actually a long-term commitment to ensuring that the infrastructure stays fit for purpose and can continue to be used.

Part of the job of the Infrastructure Commission is to have that long-term focus—not just around what bits of road need to be built in which places, not just around which new buildings or ports or railways or whatever might need to be built in the first place but about maintenance of our existing infrastructure, maintaining our existing hospital buildings, maintaining our existing schools, maintaining our existing bridges and roads and so on. That is actually a really important part of this. I feel as though maintenance of our infrastructure is perhaps something that has been somewhat neglected in various places, but it does need to be considered on an ongoing basis. So I’m impressed, really, that the Minister felt that we needed to think not just in terms of the building of new stuff but also the maintenance of our existing infrastructure, because, of course, if you don’t maintain it, then it loses value and it just results in costly repair jobs or, in some cases, in having to be replaced entirely down the track. So it’s an interesting aspect of this bill.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): On this bill here, I think there’s no question that there’s room for improvement in the way that infrastructure is managed and built in New Zealand as a whole. There’s not enough of it, aside from Minister Twyford’s observation that there’s too many roads. There’s not enough of it, it’s been too—

Hon Phil Twyford: What nonsense.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: He did; he said that we had overbuilt. He said that we had over-invested in roads.

Hon Phil Twyford: That’s only half the sentence. You’re missing out half the sentence.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Anyway, there’s not enough of it, it’s too expensive to build, we struggle to pay for it, and we’ve suffered from an on and off, on and off, cycle in the building of major infrastructure, which has meant that it’s very expensive and inefficiently built. This commission, which we are debating the legislation for, is potentially part of the solution, and so the extent to which we can get longer-term agreement, some measure of independent assessment of projects and some agreeance over long periods so as to develop a more successful pipeline, as a result of this bill, would be a good thing for this country. And that’s why, fundamentally, we are supportive of it.

I would, however, make these observations: of course, the track record of this Government in this area is not very good—the track record is not very good. So the previous National Government, for the first time in the history of the country, got agreement between Auckland Council and the Government on the major priorities for major transport investment and infrastructure. And what happened? What happened? The new Government came along and said, “No, we don’t like any of those.”—boof—“Out they go. Mill Road, out you go! East-West Link, out you go!” And, instead, in comes the light rail. So what we’ve seen is an unwillingness from this Government to stick with any kind of plan, but a willingness instead to cancel a whole lot of projects that were ready to go and to replace them with a bunch of projects that aren’t ready to go and won’t be ready to go for a long time. So their experience on that side is the exact opposite of what we’ve been talking about—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! We’re debating Part 1 of this bill—

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Indeed we are—indeed we are.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): —and so, if the member would like to turn his attention to it.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Indeed, I will. So the point in Part 1 that I’m referring to—

Hon Shane Jones: Election period?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Ha!—is indeed the election—is the community expectations of this Infrastructure Commission.

The other slight little kink in the string holding together the threads of this argument in this bill is the way that the Minister himself has gone about the development of a strategy for ports in Auckland. So he sets up the commission, and then, at the same time, out to the side, has a little bunch coming up with a scheme there—which is, again, the opposite approach. So what we want to do is we want to support the development of this commission, but we call upon the Government to be consistent in the way that it approaches infrastructure, and that’s why this is so important.

And then, of course, we do have to recognise that the establishment of a commission such as this is not in itself the solution to all the broader problems that we have around infrastructure. So, yes, to the extent to which we could see a pipeline going out for 20 years of generally agreed major projects, that would enable major contractors to come to New Zealand, more competition, and more investment in what needs to be there in order to build the infrastructure—so that would help. But we also do need to look at the regulatory side of things, which adds significant costs, and we also need to innovate in the funding. So all those three elements are critical to it all—and if we could get that right and make some progress on that and then, actually, be consistent around where we go.

I suppose the difficulty that we have is that, notwithstanding this commission, if you do have Governments that are driven by blind ideology when it comes to transport—and a blind hatred of car fascists, on that side [Gestures towards the Green Party], and a blind assessment that we’ve over-invested in roads, on that side [Gestures towards the Labour Party]—then it does make it difficult to get consistency over time. So we’ve stood for a pragmatic and balanced approach to investment in infrastructure, and we just wish that this Government would adopt a similar policy. Thank you.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Economic Development): Well, it’s a great pleasure to be able to follow on from that member, Paul Goldsmith. I want to make some comments about the definition of “community expectations” in Part 1. But, first, just let me say how much I appreciate the work that the Hon Shane Jones has put in, bringing this bill to the House. There’s been a lot of policy debate over the last two years, some very productive exchanges with the Australian colleagues from the federal and state infrastructure bodies whose work has provided much of the inspiration for this, not to mention similar enterprises in Canada and Scotland and elsewhere.

I think, probably, where we all agree in this House is that smart investment in quality infrastructure is absolutely critical to support the lifestyles and the prosperity that we all aspire to. After that, we start to get into some interesting debates. I wanted to respond to some of the things that Paul Goldsmith said in talking about the community expectations about infrastructure and what we hope the commission will do.

So in relation to the benefits that we might get from infrastructure and services, we’ve had some interesting debates in this country over the last few years. Just to give the committee an example: one of the things over the last two years has been our Government’s view that when we’re thinking about investing billions of dollars in infrastructure, particularly for our cities in the case of transport networks and three waters, instead of taking kind of a random project-by-project approach to thinking about infrastructure, we should look at the whole region or the whole city as a complex system and ask ourselves what kind of city do we want to shape and leave for the next generation, and then what kind of infrastructure do we need to deliver on that vision.

That’s the approach that our Government took with the Auckland Transport Alignment Project, where we inherited, from the former Government, a 10-year plan for Auckland that had a $6 billion funding hole in it. What we delivered, in partnership with Auckland Council, was a fully funded 10-year transport plan with $28 billion worth of funding, a truly multimodal transport plan designed to support the kind of economic growth—particularly, urban intensification around transit corridors. That’s a very different approach to funnelling all of the available money into hand-picked motorway projects, which was the predominant way that the former Government thought about infrastructure.

So that’s a very different approach, and it’s my hope that when we think about the added value that the Infrastructure Commission can bring to this area, about the benefits and the outcomes that we want from investing in infrastructure, that’s precisely the kind of thinking. It’s really about productivity. That’s the lens through which we should be viewing potential infrastructure investments. Yep, infrastructure can be a great stimulus for the economy, but we should be thinking about what kind of infrastructure will give us the best bang for buck in terms of making the economy work better, and delivering the kinds of communities that our people want.

Let me give you another example—again, under the “community expectations” in clause 3(a) of Part 1: the question about how infrastructure is built and maintained. Well, we saw, under the last Government, a classic example of a Government that loved to build big concrete things that it could announce and point to, right? But in order to devote 40 percent of the annual transport budget to these new expressway projects, they starved every other part of the transport budget, including road maintenance. Folks, that is why when you drive around our local roads and State highways around this country, they are in a terrible shape. It is because that Government sweated the asset—they sweated the asset—until the asset almost died, because they were more interested in building fantastic new concrete monuments to their hubris that they failed to actually invest in the massive roading network that we have inherited from former generations and that we have an obligation to maintain and look after.

And that’s not a sentimental thing; that’s an economic imperative. When you’ve got these big State assets that are vital to the economic wellbeing of the country, you have to invest in them, you have to maintain them, and you have to look after them. Otherwise you incur huge economic losses. I’ll leave it there.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Transport): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to rise to speak on Part 1 of this bill. The Green Party absolutely supports the Infrastructure Commission. We think it’s incredibly important, and a great initiative from my colleague the Hon Shane Jones, to do this work that will give us independent and objective analysis and advice that can allow the country to prioritise the long-term infrastructure needs of the country. It is really important.

As the previous speaker, the Hon Phil Twyford, said, it’s actually because previous Governments—the National Government in particular—really politicised the funding of transportation infrastructure that we currently have a bit of a crisis and a deficit. I mean, arguably, the problem started before that, because there was a really ideological approach that separated investment, for example, from rail and from roads, so we couldn’t invest in the rail network to help take pressure off the road network, when logically they’re part of one integrated system.

So investment in the rail network benefits those who use the road and vice versa. Investment in the rail network is incredibly important for the future economic productivity of the country and it’s also part of how we will improve safety on our roads and will reduce the cost of moving freight around—obviously the cost of moving freight by rail or by sea is much lower per container than it is by road—and there are some times when road is absolutely necessary

But the point is that on this side of the House we understand and welcome independent, objective evidence and advice about how we can make our infrastructure systems best serve the country. And I think, sadly, members opposite—based on their speeches—are suffering from a bit of projection where they imagine that we are the ones being ideological when, in fact, the exact opposite is true. When I was working in the transport sector before I came to Parliament in 2008, when there was a change of Government everyone in this sector was really quite shocked to find that the incoming National Government had already chosen seven roads of national significance and they wanted to, post hoc, come up with some sort of economic justification for spending the vast majority of new capital expenditure from the transport budget on just those projects.

And I note that ten years later those seven projects have not even been delivered. So in nine years, they failed to deliver seven projects that were chosen entirely for ideological reasons, not based on evidence about—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Can I ask the member to come to Part 1 of the bill—Part 1.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: —what would move people and goods better, and that’s why this Infrastructure Commission in Part 1 is very important because the Infrastructure Commission, as laid out in this bill and, particularly, in Part 1 where we look at the interpretation, is all about having that objective, long-term pipeline. I think this Government is bringing, finally, a sensible, balanced approach, setting up institutions that will give us independent advice. Actually, I’m quite shocked to see the National Party support it because they did not support the suggestion of an independent policy costings unit, which would give all political parties the ability to get independent costings. It doesn’t serve their interests because their entire political approach is to mislead and I find it incredibly irresponsible. But, fortunately, this coalition Government is responsible, focused on the future, and absolutely supportive of investing in infrastructure that is going to protect our climate and enable future generations of New Zealanders to thrive.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It’s my pleasure to speak to this bill and I congratulate the Hon Shane Jones on getting it to this point and to the committee of the whole. The National Party, as we’ve heard, is a promoter of this and is happy to support this bill. Personally, I’m also a promoter of this and in my experience in local government I saw lots of things that could have been done better.

Hon Chris Hipkins: How’d the water go?

LAWRENCE YULE: The water was good, thank you—many years ago. Now everything’s sorted. But I think the real issue here is it’s more in the detail and we’ll come to that later on in other parts.

But, effectively, I want to challenge some of the commentary that’s been given, particularly by the previous speaker actually, the Hon Phil Twyford, when he was in the Chamber, where he talked about community expectations, because community expectations vary. If I go and ask some people in my own electorate, they are interested in four-lane highways and getting freight from A to B. The businesses want to get freight to the port. They want to get freight to the port. And actually in my own electorate, I would argue that the local roads are in good shape: they’ve been well looked after and invested in properly. So there are always priorities.

There are priorities whether you spend money under the ground in water and waste water, on the ground in roads, in information technology, broadband—those types of things. Every community will have a different priority. So when it talks in here under Part 1, clause 3(a), about “means the expectations of [a community]”, that’s the community expectations. And then it goes on to include in clause 3(b) “expectations in relation to—(i) benefits and other outcomes that result from the infrastructure and services;”. Once again, that’s a bit of a moving feast and it depends on who you ask. So the importance of this Infrastructure Commission really is to provide whatever Government’s in power with some independent advice on a long-term basis. But we shouldn’t kid ourselves that this is going to stop political priorities from one party to the next, but it should be able to give us some independent advice.

It then goes on to talk about how the services are delivered. And later on we’re going to look at the Local Government Act in another bill that’s coming before this House and we’ll look at some changes that are going to be made here.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): You’re not meant to be talking to bills that haven’t arrived yet.

LAWRENCE YULE: My apologies—other bills that are in consideration. But anyway we’ll get to that later.

So what I’m trying to say here is this bill is good in principle. But what we’re going to get to in the next parts of the bill, from Part 2 on, does need some polishing or some refining, and I hope that the Minister will allow us or indulge us to at least have a reasonable attempt at doing so.

I do acknowledge that the Minister has travelled widely to look at this. In my previous speech on the same topic I said I’ve been to the UK, to Hong Kong, and other places, and I’ve looked myself. There is absolute merit in doing this. In Australia it has transformed some of the infrastructure. But I do want to challenge some members in this committee who believe this will solve everything. It won’t. But if we do it properly it will provide us with an independent set of analysis. We will have to make decisions on the quality of service, because the quality of service is fundamentally influenced by how much money you spend.

So everybody wants the best. In my experience, when I was the mayor, everybody wanted asphalt cement on their roads—black, smooth, really quiet, looks great—but it was three times the price. It was three times the price of normal chip seal. So you actually have to balance these things up and I don’t think this Infrastructure Commission should be expected to fix all that.

Then it goes on to how the infrastructure is built and maintained. And for me a lot of conversations in New Zealand are stymied by the fact that we think the public sector needs to build everything. The public sector doesn’t need to build everything. There are lots of other contracts and available options where companies can build things, they can provide really good services, and I want the Infrastructure Commission to look at that.

In closing, I make one observation—last one. When I went to London recently I looked at the Battersea Power Station development. The council and Government had tried to build that, failed twice, and a Malaysian company with Hong Kong infrastructure providers have now got it sorted and it’s moving. The houses are built—first-class infrastructure. We shouldn’t be afraid.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Before I call Tamati Coffey, I want to encourage members of the committee to actually speak to Part 1 of this bill. If we can’t contribute to Part 1, maybe we should have the vote and go on Part 2, because most of what I’ve heard is about Part 2. Tamati Coffey.

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you, Mr Chair. And also thank you to the Minister for Infrastructure for bringing this bill to the House. This is a combined effort, of course, from the Minister for Infrastructure, Minister of Finance, Minister of Transport, and also of the Minister of Housing and Minister for Urban Development. This has been a collaboration.

Andrew Bayly: And the National Party.

TAMATI COFFEY: This has been a collaboration between all parties in the House and, as someone that sat on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, we pored over the bill and it’s widely accepted not just throughout the practitioners out there in the field but also around our committee room table that actually this is a really good thing and it’s a positive thing for New Zealand.

Can I say we’re a little bit late to the table. Why—because our Australian cousins got there a wee bit before us. Infrastructure Australia was set up in 2008, Infrastructure New South Wales in 2011, Infrastructure Victoria in 2015, Building Queensland in 2015, Infrastructure South Australia last year, and Infrastructure Western Australia is expected to be set up this year.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): None of which is in Part 1.

TAMATI COFFEY: That’s OK. What the community expectation is is that we are better than our neighbours. We’re better than our Australian counterparts. So there is that expectation that we deliver when it comes to infrastructure.

And what is infrastructure? Well, in Part I, clause 3, “infrastructure means physical infrastructure that is in New Zealand or that results in services in New Zealand”. What’s an infrastructure project? It includes the creation of new infrastructure, and the maintenance, upgrading, replacement, decommissioning, or removal of existing infrastructure. Isn’t that good? It basically means that infrastructure is this huge gambit, really. There’s a lot that falls under the umbrella of infrastructure projects—everything from roads, to ports, to airports, railways, energy, education, our hospitals, and our social services as well.

Infrastructure is something that Māori absolutely need to be consulted on as this process happens, as this commission goes forward. Everything to do with air, land, water is absolutely at the heart of what we as Māori feel is part of us, intrinsically part of us.

So the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Bill has come before our committee. Part 1 has been a delight to go over, and for that reason I’ll just finish by saying that it’s been good to see both sides of the House supporting it, and hearing the contributions from the other side. I look forward to Part 2.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I just say it’s a pleasure to speak after my colleague Tamati Coffey and to just continue focusing solely on Part 1, because I know that’s important and I’ve decided to come in and give him a hand. Look, it’s a hardworking committee, the Finance and Expenditure Committee, chaired by Deborah Russell on my left here—of course, a hard-working chair, I have to reiterate. But, also, this is a fantastic piece of work from the one of the hardest-working Cabinet Ministers, the Hon Shane Jones, there, in his high-vis vest—

Hon Shane Jones: Illustrious.

PAUL EAGLE: —illustrious; the adjectives are coming thick and fast.

But, look, I do want to focus on Part 1. I know the Chair is nervous that this may have been exhausted but can I reassure him that it hasn’t, because when we talk about community expectations, boy, is the list long. I remember that when the transport Minister, the Hon Phil Twyford, spoke, in his speech he talked about nation-building and mentioned that wonderful public service agency, the Ministry of Works. I was doing some research—as you do with these critical speeches in the House—and it was none other than the other side who got rid of it in 1996, I saw. I think that’s key, and I want to relate the disestablishment of the Ministry of Works in 1996 by that side of the House—what a disgraceful act that was to community expectations.

I heard local government being mentioned, and there was no better training ground, or for those of us that have electorate offices, to hear first-hand what community expectations are. Can I say that those expectations are just really basic stuff around infrastructure. So when they come into my office it’s simple stuff, they talk airports—you know, why is every airport in this country putting their hand up to the Minister saying, “We need money, we need funding for our airport extensions”. That’s an expectation that’s quite real. Every single airport is crawling here saying, “That lot on the other side, they gave us nothing; absolutely nothing”. What I now see is that Provincial Growth Fund logo up, proudly going up like a coat of arms that usually the local authority co-owner would put up, but, instead, it’s that beautiful hook to say this has been funded by this side of the House—a coalition Government absolutely serious about infrastructure.

I only need to walk down the road from the Wellington Airport and you see wharves there that are boarded up—that’s infrastructure. But did you know that nearly every single wharf in this city is boarded up because there’s been zero investment? They were discarded. I don’t want to talk about the role of local government yet, because that comes in a different part, but it’s sad. Add wharves to ports, and another set of infrastructure—by this stage, you’re down at the railway station, here, in the capital city. There is no better symbol or icon of how infrastructure has gone so wrong in this city itself. I mean it’s running through most of New Zealand Aotearoa and—they are, all over New Zealand, crying out for investment.

Those are the expectations of community; they want to be able to have conversations around infrastructure, they have certain expectations. Everyone’s mentioned maintenance, I mean, come on—when you build something, you have to maintain it. We know that from a personal perspective, when you own your own home or you’re renting or whatever, maintenance is key. That’s talked about there in Part 1. I think Kiwis have an absolute passion around getting infrastructure right. It’s talked about every day, in every town; every MP’s talking about it. I’m so glad that on this side of the House we’ve put together a programme, we’ve set up a commission—that I’ll talk about in Part 2—led by the illustrious, as he calls himself, the first citizen of the provinces, none other than the Hon Shane Jones himself, and I’m very happy to speak on this bill. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, we now come to the debate on Part 2: clauses 6 to 26, and Schedule 2.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Infrastructure): The term “Waihanga” almost disappeared into another piece of legislation. I direct your attention to Part 2, identifying that in the establishment of this body it is indeed a Crown entity. As civic culture, political culture, and, I’d like to think, our popular culture has evolved we are embracing both languages, although I would say to my Labour colleagues: we have fought the good fight for our reo over the years, but to the best of my knowledge, English is not an official language. I might have to do something about that very soon.

On the question of the members of the commission you will see, fellow parliamentarians, that it will not be peopled by more than seven members. There is a vacancy. We deliberately left that vacancy for Dr Alan Bollard in the event he felt there was a conspicuous absence of a rare skill, or there was a need to involve someone of a trans-Tasman character. The commission members reflect a range of skills, and I have to acknowledge the Treasury officials sitting behind me; they provided a host of names. One or three of the names attracted a fair bit of attention out in the broader community that pays attention to these things, but I stand by all of the people nominated on to this body. I only hope that my colleagues on the Opposition benches see sense, in the very dim and distant point where they might enjoy the privileges that are currently bestowed on this side of the House, to continue what I’ve endeavoured to do—look for people that enjoy a broad level of support on both sides of Parliament’s House.

Now, this part is broken into three subparts. I’ll just talk a little bit about the main function of the commission. What are the words that are used here?—develop, promote, coordinate, encourage, and wellbeing. Now, wellbeing is a key feature that identifies the backdrop against which we are delivering our political mission, by dint of holding the benches of Treasury. I think there is a case that where approaches need to be changed, this entity would provide advice. It may actually be advice that the bureaucracy are not keen on receiving, but a Minister should be able to turn to this organisation and request such a level of advice from them. That may pertain to how you get a better blend between private and public capital. It may also turn on providing an authoritative base of information that enables the politicians of the day to go out and defend certain projects or defend a decision that, God forbid, they were incapable of making themselves.

In terms of additional functions, the most important thing here, I do feel—well, of particular importance—is the right blend between efficiency and effectiveness. I think it’s fairly evident to members of the House that I am totally unimpressed with how long it takes things to get done in New Zealand. Now, it could be said that’s a feature of what the nation voted for in 1996 when MMP came in. Earlier, in 1986, there had obviously been a royal commission. So maybe that’s the culture that has emerged since those days. But I am incredibly interested in seeing not only this bill contribute and the eventual powers that it’ll have, that will be enjoyed by the commission; we need to get things done a lot more quicker and a lot more effectively in New Zealand in the space of infrastructure.

There are a host of other things that I will continue to elaborate upon, but I’m conscious that there’d be one or three other members, and I’ll hear what they’ve got to say and probably correct their misapprehensions. Thank you very much.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Mr Chair. As the Chairman might know, I’ve tabled two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs), and I thought I might just give a bit of backdrop to those. Last week, I attended the Constructive forum in Wellington. In the morning, we had two Labour Ministers, Ministers Twyford and Salesa, and the recurring theme during the course of the day—and particularly when they were questioned—was an issue of inappropriate procurement and contracts being issued by Government entities as well as territorial local authorities (TLAs).

There was a chorus, of the 600 people involved in that forum, of people saying: “Look, even last week”—some of them quoted—Government agencies were out in discussions with some of them and trying to impose very onerous contracts that put significant issues in terms of not only how they were to operate and the penalties if they were late but, much more significantly, around the allocation of risk.

This issue about appropriate allocation of risk is one that permeates the industry. It is the one that is leading to a significant number of company failures and also leading to a general lack of profitability in the building and construction sector.

So the Ministers were questioned quite mercilessly by the 600 delegates, and, unfortunately, I’ve got to say—and I said this last week—that I actually found it quite embarrassing for the Ministers themselves, because they were unable to answer the question that the industry people were saying to them, and the questions were namely: “When you came into office in 2017, you said you would put in proper procurement contracts for the Government and make the Government do that and you would also address the issue around appropriate risk allocation.”

So, with that in mind, I took the opportunity, over the last couple of days, to draft a Supplementary Order Paper, which has now been tabled, which gives an additional power to the Infrastructure Commission. Namely, in SOP 362, it has got the right now, under new clause 22A, to be able to review, at its discretion, specific contracts either undertaken by central government agencies or TLAs.

Particularly, in its non-exclusive list, it asks the commission, when the commission is doing that review, to have regard for procurement policies and practices of the entity that was doing the procurement, identification of risk factors and how they were allocated between the contracting parties—which is the specific issue which was addressed last week in the forum—any funding and financing models relied upon by the entity, and any whole-of-life commercial considerations taken into account by the entity. What it provided for was a mechanism for the commission, if it chose, to highlight good practices or poor practices and to be able to undertake a review, seek feedback from parties concerned, and publish the results, because, if there’s ever a way to ensure that we’ve got better procurement practices across both the Government and the TLA or council sector, this is the way to achieve it.

I was most heartened this morning when I met with the Hon Shane Jones and had a conversation with him about this thing. I was heartened that he was very supportive of my SOP. There is one issue that was raised around the issue of whether we were replicating two clauses relating to the requirement to publish that report. So I’ve responded to that and provided a second supplementary, SOP 363, which gives the option of deleting one of those clauses, so there’s now only one clause relating to a need to publicise the report.

Those two supplementaries are now on the Table, and I’m very hopeful that we’re going to have them passed by the committee today, because, if ever we want to try and help the building and construction people or sector, which employs 250,000 people across New Zealand and includes vulnerable subcontractors, this is one of those tangible mechanisms that will achieve a real outcome and make a real difference. So I’m hoping, and I’m looking across at Government members here today to make sure that they act in the best interest not only of that sector but for all New Zealanders so we get an excellent outcome and help to achieve a sector that is in trouble at the moment.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I am interested to discuss these Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that have been prepared by Mr Andrew Bayly. He’s obviously thinking very carefully about it, because he’s brought not just the SOP but then an amendment to the SOP as he thought of another good idea. It would be helpful to have them on a timely basis, Mr Bayly, but I guess that doesn’t always happen, does it?

I’m in two minds about these SOPs. We have had in the Finance and Expenditure Committee quite an extended discussion about procurement and procurement practices, led by a report from the Auditor-General, who does prepare excellent reports for us. The Auditor-General does have a pretty extensive project going looking at procurement practices within Government and how it could be done better. It is, as Mr Bayly says, quite an important issue for us to have a look at.

I do agree that we do need to have a focus on procurement. I’m not sure—and this is genuine “not sure”; I’m not trying to cast doubt on Mr Bayly’s SOPs—that this particular entity is the place to do it, and I think the committee should have a good kōrero about it—a good talk about it—because we haven’t examined this idea in select committee, so we do need to have a look at it now.

I guess the reason why I’m not sure is that even though it is, obviously, a good idea for us to be looking at procurement at some place across Government, I wonder if it would undercut the purpose of the Infrastructure Commission. The purpose of the commission is to make those long-term planning decisions for Government. The purpose is to have a look at what infrastructure we have, have a look at what infrastructure we need, have a look at how we should be maintaining that infrastructure—it is to look across all those issues. The purpose is very much of visualising, of having a vision around infrastructure and building towards it, of ensuring that contractors—sorry, the construction firms and the like; the civil engineers—actually have a very good understanding of what projects are being lined up over the next 10, 15, 20, or 30 years, so that they can plan themselves.

If we add examining procurement to that, I think that’s another whole function. I don’t know that it sits within the original function of the Infrastructure Commission. So there are a series of questions around that, then. One is how it relates to the overall purpose of the commission, and I’ll be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that. But the other one is straightforwardly a funding issue. The Infrastructure Commission is a planning entity. It will gather information for that purpose, it will assess information for that purpose, and so on. Examining the procurement processes is actually a different sort of activity. The commission won’t be planning those procurement processes; instead it’s planning the infrastructure itself. So I’m not sure that the procurement processes actually fit within the structure of the Infrastructure Commission, and I think we should have a very careful think about doing it.

Now, if we go ahead with putting procurement processes in there, I don’t have concerns about the issues around reporting back and so on. Those are fairly straightforward—you don’t just set the procurement function up and then not actually report back on it. But I do think we should examine the actual purpose of the Infrastructure Commission and whether or not examining procurement processes fit within that.

So I’m hoping that the Minister will let us know what his thoughts are on that issue, and, obviously, I’d be interested to hear from Mr Bayly again on that particular issue as well, especially when he’s, you know, heard my doubts and concerns about it. I would like to hear a little bit more from Mr Bayly about exactly why it fits together with the Infrastructure Commission. You know, the commission does have a variety of functions. I’m just not convinced about adding this one to it. Thank you, Madam Chair.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you. Hey, well thank you for that opportunity, given that you’ve asked me a very specific question about the purpose of the commission. So just to answer Deborah Russell’s specific queries, at the moment, as she knows, under clauses 9 and 10—and the Minister did allude to this—it has the ability or requirement “to co-ordinate, develop, and promote an approach to infrastructure that encourages infrastructure, and services that result from the infrastructure, that improve the well-being of New Zealanders.” So that’s an overarching thing, but its purpose is largely an advisory function. As you know, having sat on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, Ms Russell, the issue is that it has a strategic role, and in that process it can collate information—as we talked about earlier, it can now do it from the territorial local authorities or councils—and provide support and advice and, basically, act as a centre of excellence. And that’s fine—that’s fine for those procurement managers.

I think in terms of getting better procurement outcomes in New Zealand, you actually need to talk at procurement manager level rather than the Government entities and councils, because that is the central issue that came out of the forum last week, which is when the Ministers were repeatedly asked, “Why have you not put in place new procurement arrangements which you promised to do 20 months ago?”, the Ministers talked about requiring entities to do all that sort of stuff, and yet, of course, that hasn’t happened, and that was one of the concerns.

But the real issue is Ministers can issue edicts, but the people that actually implement it are actually at the procurement manager level. There are thousands of projects procured both across central government and local government—$43 billion, as I said, just for central government. So it’s nice acting as a centre of excellence, and I’m sure some people will use that and respond well to that opportunity, but if you’ve had anything to do with the infrastructure sector, and particularly around the procurement, many people believe they are expert, and that is one of the reasons why we have such variability in terms of the level of procurement that goes on at both local government and central government level, but also with outcomes that in some cases are absolutely detrimental.

So what this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 362 specifically does is it says, right, that the commission can still continue to do and act as a centre of excellence, but one of the things—it actually has no teeth, the Infrastructure Commission. It doesn’t have the ability to do anything else other than by a special direction. What the SOP does is it gives a clear direction to the Infrastructure Commission that one of its prime roles should be to highlight both good procurement and poor examples of procurement, and from there, by looking at the different aspects—and I quoted before including the one around risk and how it was allocated—it will lead to better outcomes across New Zealand.

As we’ve all talked about, the best thing in life is the disinfectant of sunlight, and this is what this commission will have the opportunity to do, and hopefully it will focus not only on the poor results but the absolute best outcomes, because one of the requirements is it must share its learnings across the sector. That is how we’re going to see improvement over time, and that is why I think the Hon Shane Jones this morning was very supportive of the bill, because we all know that we need to procure much better in New Zealand. There are so many poor examples. I know my colleague Mr Lawrence Yule is going to talk about those, but they are many, and you only need to talk to a building construction firm for five minutes and you will realise that this is the most central issue for these builders. Particularly during periods of downturn, when businesses are struggling, they are prepared to take on contracts, and they feel like they have to, and assume too much risk because they are trying to look after their employees, trying to keep their businesses alive. That is the moment when we now see the results—and we’ve seen recent examples of this—of significant companies’ failures and the consequential impact on subcontractors. That’s why I’m so glad and I’m hopeful that you’re going to support this SOP, because this is what will make a real change to the building and construction sector.

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just speaking to Part 2 of this bill, there was a lot of discussion around the part of the bill which deals with the information-gathering powers of the commission. In fact, it was brought up through the various submissions that came in, through about 10 of our local bodies around the country, 10 local government organisations—Auckland Council, Hamilton City Council, Watercare Services Ltd, Whanganui District Council, and the Society of Local Government Managers. A series of them all put forward in their submissions that, actually, clause 23 of the bill be reset to include local government within the scope of the information-gathering powers. Now, we did toil over that for quite some time. We sought advice from officials, but actually we thought that it was a pretty sensible thing to do.

So in our report back during this committee of the whole House stage, it’s that little part that I just wanted to focus on, because it’s an essential part, actually, the ability for the commission to be able to gather information about New Zealand’s infrastructure. Some of that information is, obviously, held here at central government level, but, actually, much of that is held at local government level. So the strategy, the planning functions, the development of the long-term infrastructure strategy report—all of that is going to rely on the current infrastructure, and knowledge and information about the current infrastructure, in order to be able to chart a pathway forward and decide where exactly the Infrastructure Commission should be setting its direction.

There was something in there as well to make sure that we were going to extend the privacy protections for personal information, so that was a wee bit of a carve-out, that we were quite sure that we wouldn’t be delving into the private lives of people; that, actually, individuals would be safeguarded from the information-gathering powers. But when it came to the information-gathering powers, it is absolutely necessary and it was widely accepted around the table—Local Government New Zealand came and presented to the committee and were united in their voice when they said that they needed to be included specifically in clause 23.

Subpart 5 of Part 2 of the bill empowers also the commission to request and obtain information relevant to its functions from Government departments other than the GCSB and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service. Those, for very obvious reasons, were carved out, but we would need to find information from departmental agencies, from the New Zealand Defence Force, and from statutory entities named in Schedule 1 of the Crown Entities Act, that being Crown agents, autonomous Crown entities, and independent Crown entities as well.

The actual structure of the commission was set up to make sure, as we’ve said before, that we’ve got a very strong pipeline of infrastructure projects, and the inclusion of local government into that is absolutely as part of that wider conversation. Thank you, Madam Chair.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It’s my pleasure to take a further call, just on Part 2. I really want to talk about Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 362 from my colleague Andrew Bayly. It may, sort of, be the norm in this House that because my colleague’s put it up, the Government and the Government parties do not want to support it, but I do think there is a real opportunity in this bill to have a different look at procurement. I acknowledge that the select committee chair, Deborah Russell, has said that, you know, it’s a bit late in the piece. Well, it’s never too late if something could be made better, and I want to thank Mr Bayly for bringing it to us. He attended a conference, some things were laid out to him, and there’s an opportunity and time in the committee of the whole House to change things.

I want to give the committee an example of where I think we don’t have it quite correct in the Government, when we look at procurement. Effectively, when you look at procurement, there are procurement guidelines set out by Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and they’re about to be renewed. They really look at procurement from a probity perspective, on a value perspective and how the process operates. And then you have, effectively, the Office of the Auditor-General, which looks over that and is doing a big review at the moment on procurement.

I’ve been looking at a procurement issue over the best part of 18 months which is around the building of rapid deployment prison cells in New Zealand and a contract that was let and how that has been followed. It’s all in the public realm, so I can talk about it. But, effectively, a contract worth about $60 million was varied to $185 million without public advertising, without any public notification of it, and I didn’t think that was right, because, ultimately, those prison cells have been built in China, brought to New Zealand fully made, and, effectively, New Zealanders have lost out on jobs. Now, I can accept that, if the procurement process is fair and reasonable, so I followed that all the way through. Yesterday I received a letter from the Office of the Auditor-General saying that in their view the process was fair and reasonable. I still don’t agree that that is the case, but that was the view.

The point I’m trying to highlight is that when you look at MBIE, who are highly respected officials working for the Government on one side, they come up with rules, with advice from the industry and Ministers, and on the other hand you’ve got the Office of the Auditor-General on this side saying: did MBIE follow the rules and does it make sense? What is lacking, in my view, is a real hands-on look from the other side of this equation. That’s what we’re delivering. Rather than the process and the cost, what is the difference we could make in how we procure things? And while it’s a late call, I actually think there is an opportunity with this bill to allow the new Infrastructure Commission to seek out and find on behalf of the infrastructure—not on behalf of the Government, not on behalf of the person that looks out as to how we spend things; that’s the Office of the Auditor-General—what are the ways we could improve the delivery of infrastructure in New Zealand.

Deborah Russell previously said that she was open-minded, and generally open-minded. Well, my comment to this committee is that I think we should be genuinely open-minded to this SOP that Mr Bayly has put up, even though it’s late in the piece. Because my experience over the last 12 months, looking at the issue I’ve been looking at, has been that I don’t think there is a central agency that’s delivering what you have said, the Hon Shane Jones—about how slow things are and why things happen the way they are. We have a Government agency on one side and we’ve got a checker and balancer on the other side. I think we need to tip it on its head a bit. And if in fact the Infrastructure Commission, in doing all its work and advising various Governments, thought that there was an issue with procurement and they wanted to look at best and worst practice, I think absolutely this bill should make provision for that to occur. I understand, and I could be wrong, that the Greens would want to support this type of approach.

I spoke in the House the other day about how we’re going to procure climate change adaptation measures. All those things are going to be really interesting. The current framework may not be suitable. And if we’re serious in this House about having cross-party agreement and doing the right thing for infrastructure in the long term, I think a little tweak to this bill to allow this commission to investigate procurement at its wish would be a useful thing for the taxpayers and value of New Zealand.

Michael Wood: Madam Chair?

Paul Eagle: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m spoilt for choice—Michael Wood.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Thank you, Madam Chair. Life is like a box of chocolates. I want to thank members of the committee for what, I think, has been a good and constructive and collegial debate during this committee stage, and that really does carry on the engagement that was had on the select committee. I acknowledge the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, Deborah Russell. I had the enjoyable experience of chairing the committee prior to Ms Russell at the time when the committee was hearing submitters on this bill.

There were many submissions that related to Part 2 of the bill. In my comments today I just want to focus on two issues. One is the issues that have been raised by Mr Bayly and the Opposition that are reflected in his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 362. I acknowledge this is a good faith attempt to respond to an issue that Mr Bayly has been thinking about, but I do actually think that in the course of the select committee considerations, these issues were pretty thoroughly canvassed. They were canvassed in two ways.

The first was that in discussions with officials, members of the committee brought forward a range of ideas about the, sort of, more specific functions that we thought could have been identified in the bill, and this was one of the ones that was mentioned. There was also reference to consideration of infrastructure in respect of the Treaty of Waitangi and other matters as well. The committee actually got very clear advice from officials that the way in which the bill has been written is, actually, largely quite permissive in that the Infrastructure Commission has pretty broad powers to assess matters in respect of infrastructure and to give views on them. So the views of officials that were provided to the committee were that adding in additional specific functions isn’t actually particularly necessary. I hope to some degree that might assist Mr Bayly in terms of this issue.

The other point that I would make is that submitter after submitter said to us that they didn’t want duplication across the sector. I would say very clearly to Mr Bayly that if one is to read his SOP, which, essentially, requests that “The Commission may undertake a review of the procurement processes used by an entity listed in section 23(5)”, that is exactly what the Office of the Auditor-General does and reports to us at this Parliament regularly on. In fact, one of the current theme topics that the Office of the Auditor-General is focused on is the matter of procurement across central and local government, and the select committee has received considerable advice—very, very helpful advice—to the committee and to the Parliament from the Office of the Auditor-General.

So I do believe that while the SOP is really well intentioned, while I believe that it is appropriate that we have a good oversight of procurement practice, because we’re dealing with a lot of money—we need to make sure that the spend is good, and there are a whole lot of issues associated with probity that go to procurement—we do already have a highly competent body with a very specific skill set that does this work. And (a) I don’t think that duplicating that function is good practice, and (b) quite frankly, I think it would result in the Infrastructure Commission having to, sort of, grow a whole other big arm and bring in a whole lot of other specialist expertise that may not actually be available, because it’s highly specialist, and wouldn’t actually add anything to what we know, given the work of the Office of Auditor-General.

The second thing I just want to note in respect of Part 2 is the important change that did occur and is recommended in the select committee report, and that is the bringing into the bill of the power to request information from local government. I think this is really important. I come out of local government, as a number of other members in the House do, and often the role of local government is overlooked by this House, in my view.

Local government in New Zealand oversees, I think, around about $150 billion to $160 billion of capital assets, and it wouldn’t have made any sense, in my view, for the commission to have not had the ability to request information about those assets in order to form a long-term view about how we plan out our infrastructure in New Zealand. We need much greater coordination between central government and local government if we’re going to get the kind of long-term infrastructure that we need. And, fundamentally, that’s what this bill is about. It’s about planning for the long term, not just the coming electoral cycle but the next 30 to 50 years. That’s certainly the approach that this Government wants to take in the purpose of the commission that has been set up here.

So I finish on those two points. I think that the Supplementary Order Paper is superfluous. I think it’s very good that the select committee has recommended bringing in the ability to request information of local government in Part 2 of this bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and can I say what an honour it is to talk about Part 2. You missed my speech on Part 1, which was hugely exciting to the committee, I know, but I’m happy to talk about Part 2 and, really, just add to and endorse what my colleagues have said.

Look, I applaud the work on the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), but I also noticed, not being a member of the committee—but I know that the primary purpose of the commission will be to have an advisory role only. I looked in detail around some of its support for projects, and, in that, I noticed it says, “produce best practice guidance on infrastructure procurement and delivery”. I wonder if that’s not enough to satisfy what the member is trying to achieve. I also note that, through its delivery arm, the Infrastructure Transactions Unit will be involved, obviously, in supporting individual projects, and this can include giving advice on the decision to invest and the procurement process—so two pieces of information there that lend support to wanting a stronger focus on procurement. It keeps intact the integrity of the commission’s primary purpose, and that is around an advisory role. And I think that may be enough—in fact, will be enough—in terms of trying to achieve something that is, I guess, a go-between, the intent of a stronger procurement focus.

Look, I totally agree that, in terms of some of the intent of a pipeline of work and having the frustrations of, say, a hold-up with procurement or that process when you are starting to pack in a number of projects that have different time lines for different pieces of infrastructure work, the procurement function may be seen as a hold-up or may be seen as a barrier. I think, though, can I say, that in terms of addressing the SOPs at least there is some information or some intent there in terms of supporting projects already in place.

I want to move to Part 2 and just endorse the work of the Hon Shane Jones, again in terms of putting in place the commission, the board, appointing the chief executive, but also again reinforcing just some of the work of the select committee. One of those was, of course, those information-gathering powers, and we know that, with the arm’s length operation of State-owned enterprises, for example, now in charge of many a piece of infrastructure that is Government owned, people-owned infrastructure, there can be some reluctance in some ways for a whole range of reasons, and I applaud that that’s been addressed there in clause 23.

Likewise, with local government, where they too—and I used some of those examples in my speech in Part 1, around their infrastructure, but I note, though, that it, I guess, restricts it to that of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, to the scope or the extent of that Act. And I think that’s excellent because I think, as we’ve seen what the intent of this body is, they say that we want, I guess, a pipeline or a whole of public works programme of works for the future. Then you are going to have to have local government in the work that they do. Things are co-funded, co-managed, co-owned; so it just makes sense. But I want to, I guess, applaud the committee for showing some common-sense approach in terms of the resource required to get information, and so they get a tick for that.

My colleagues have talked about extending privacy protections. Look, this bill is long overdue, it will be implemented successfully, and I commend this to the House.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair, and it’s a great pleasure to speak on this Part 2 of the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Bill, and I start with clause 9, which I am surprised, given the Minister, is not exactly elegantly expressed. If you look at clause 9, it says, “The main function of the Commission is to co-ordinate, develop, and promote an approach to infrastructure that encourages infrastructure, and services that result from infrastructure, that improve the well-being of New Zealanders.” It’s not very well expressed, to be honest—“promote an approach to infrastructure that encourages infrastructure”—and it doesn’t really define what the approach to infrastructure is. I wouldn’t have assumed that there was an approach to infrastructure that would discourage infrastructure, but maybe there is, maybe there isn’t. The point that we’ve got here is that, I think, what is trying to be said is that the commission would, well—well, that’s the point; it’s not clear what it’s trying to say. I can’t make head or tail of it. I’m prepared to ask the Minister. I’d love to ask the Minister to explain just exactly what clause 9 means in simple terms. And, unfortunately, without reference to Biblical allusions or passing proverbs—just in clear, simple terms—it would be useful to know what he actually means by that.

In terms of the actual functions in the next clause, it refers to “[might] provide advice in relation to infrastructure … [about] the ability of existing infrastructure to meet … expectations;”. Well, of course, everybody in New Zealand knows, and particularly in Auckland, where I come from, that there is a shortage in the transport estate, which has built up over many decades. The previous National Government, of course, worked tirelessly to try and turn that around and invested significantly in a broad range of transport areas but also worked on some other, wider areas—of course, one of the greatest areas of infrastructure progress that was made was through the ultra-fast broadband and the provision of that sort of thing. So it’s not just about transport, but we certainly need to continue that work, and the frustration that many New Zealanders feel right here, right now is that that momentum that we had over the past nine years—nine years of progress—has been lost and we’ve fallen into a hole and there hasn’t been that continuity. So I think there’s no question that the commission will have a lot to say about the pause that we’ve seen in the provision of infrastructure and the fact that we need to get back to a clear pipeline.

Then the third one, of course, is the priorities for infrastructure, and that’s where we run into a problem, because we, of course, have the Greens and Julie Anne Genter, who is determined not to give in to the car fascists, and then we’ve got Phil Twyford, the Minister of Transport, who is the only person in New Zealand apart from Julie Anne Genter who thinks that we’ve overinvested in roads in recent history, because most people do just want to get around. So when we’re trying to sort of work on what our priorities for infrastructure are, then you get into difficulties because we on this side of the House have the old-fashioned view that the purpose of transport infrastructure, at least, is to enable Kiwis to get around quickly, efficiently, and safely. That’s what transport infrastructure is about, but unfortunately that doesn’t seem to be what the Government sees. And so, instead of having a bunch of projects in Auckland for example, where I am, in terms of dealing with the congestion on the Southern Motorway, they have this focus for the single biggest transport investment ever being a slight improvement to the public transport offering down Dominion Road with a slow train.

So people can’t understand that priority. So it will be very interesting. I’d be fascinated to see the first report from this commission when it sits down, and tries to make head or tail of the priorities for infrastructure. It’ll be a useful and instructive discussion, and, to the extent to which, as a result of the studies of this group, that we can get a more sensible basis for decision making around the priorities for infrastructure, it will be a good thing. But I’d like to hear an explanation from the Minister of what clause 9 actually means. Thank you very much.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just, sort of, getting to the point where I thought there’s a fair bit of waffle going on here, so I thought I’d better add a bit of structure of the discussion. I wanted to, firstly, just thank the Minister in the chair for his opening remarks, and remind him that a good dose of cynicism’s a great thing, provided that cynicism doesn’t last too long. I do suffer from a little cynicism around this type of proposition, because we don’t always find that Governments follow the advice they’re given, and I accept that.

First of all, I want to talk about the commission itself, because I think that the commission, the people on the commission, and the people who will be appointed that commission, are hugely important. I think they’ve got plenty of talent, and the ability to carry out the role that’s being tasked to them, and I certainly support—even though I do have a little cynicism about it—this New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Bill, and the structure that it leads to. But I want to talk a little bit about infrastructure, and I know we’ve spent most of the time—other than Paul Eagle’s address about some of the airports—talking about roads here, and I’m not going to do that, except to say that one of the challenges we have in a small economy, like New Zealand, is that the people we have in business are hugely important, and the knowledge they carry with them is also extremely important. That skill and experience they have with them, and they have in businesses, like contracting businesses, and businesses that supply services to Governments, and to councils, and communities, is hugely important.

If we don’t have a consistent stream of work coming on, those people are very quickly lost in New Zealand, because they’re poached by overseas operators, and they’re gone, and it’s very hard to replace them in a small economy like this. The other thing that’s obvious in this business, I guess, are big machines, and some of us like big machines. We see them, they do a massive amount of work, they pull hillsides to bits very quickly, build roads, railways, and other things. The challenge with that, of course, is they’re hugely expensive, and if those people that invest in those don’t have confidence in the future infrastructure projects, they won’t invest in them. So it becomes much more expensive for us to replace the infrastructure in New Zealand than it does elsewhere in the world, and that’s very challenging for us as well.

So it’s critical for businesses involved in the infrastructure sector to have some continuity of work. The other thing that’s very important to those businesses, and might be completely unseen, is the intellectual property they carry, and the opportunity that we lose if we don’t have a significant continuity of work in that area. Now, I also think Andrew Bayly’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) has some significant merit. I’ve never been that confident, in my time in public life, around how we do procure tenders, or tender for contracts and work, and other projects that we procure in the public sector, and I’m not sure that there’s an easy answer to it. But I do think it’s a stream of work that needs some significant attention paid to it, and this would have been one way of doing that. There, obviously, will be other ways we could do that should this SOP not be accepted.

Now, I want to just talk about one other area of infrastructure, which I think’s probably overlooked, to a large extent, when we discuss things like that, and that’s our defence forces. Some people have a great sea view. Some people have a great view of the back end of another building. I have a great view of Ōhākea air force base, whether I like it or not, every day. But the interesting thing about it is that our defence bases—three of the major ones, which are in the Rangitīkei electorate, interestingly—are very critical pieces of infrastructure for us, and it’s most important, I think, whether we’re in defence, whether we’re in surveillance, or whether we’re just trying to protect our communities from climate events, or whatever, that we have that infrastructure, and that we have it in a fashion, and have it operating in a manner that can be picked up, and used very quickly for whatever it’s used for.

As I said, I look at Ōhākea air force base, and I see an enormous amount of investment take place, and then disappear, and then, four or five years later, another Government comes along, and another enormous amount of investment occurs, and then they disappear again. I don’t think we realise the breadth of work this commission is going to have to undertake. It’s going to be very significant. So having said those few words, I think that this bill is a very good one, and I think it’s well worth persevering with. I’ll be very interested, and my cynicism might be allayed, to see how it proceeds, as it goes through successive Governments. I won’t see that many more of them, of course.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I want to thank the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee for their contributions. The honourable member from the Opposition Andrew Bayly did come and see me this morning, and I respect him for reaching out to me. I just want to direct our attention to clause 20: “The Minister may give direction to provide report”. Now, as I understand, the contribution and the content of what is quite a reasonable set of expectations in the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)—and I want to tell the House that, already, the officials—the advisers, and advocates, and whatnot—that will, eventually, be employed by the entity once it’s established, are seized of this issue. I don’t think that today—in fact, I know, today—I’m not able, on behalf of the Government, to commit to this SOP. But I want to say to the member, I actually agree with a lot of what he’s saying, but I’m of the view that to include the SOP today, in quite this manner, and form—I’m not in a position to agree with it.

I do think, though, that there’s a deeper set of questions that both parties have struggled to resolve. We have inherited a set of obligations upon us to be quite miserly, in terms of how we allocate capital, and risk. We’ve never wanted—and, certainly, in my lifetime as a public figure—to burden the Crown with too much of the risk. That’s had the effect of—with the exception of the debacle of the Christchurch rebuild, but put that to the side—actually, creating far too much fiscal disharmony in too many firms. So to the extent that that’s what the member is alerting to us, I agree. My preference, however, is for us to pick this body of work up, possibly after a more exhaustive process, with the actual members of the commission, and I would note that the select committee members themselves have since told me—and not in any partisan way—that they did have this discussion, and I’m confident that one letter, signed with characteristic flourish from the Minister for Infrastructure, to Dr Bollard, will set in train the very thing that the Opposition is seeking to achieve.

So I agree with the contributions, the content. I just cannot agree, this afternoon, for the SOP to be added to this particular bill, but I do give an undertaking—to the extent that a politician can give an undertaking—to bring back either a further amendment, or evidence that the officials behind me are going to push forward with options that our Government can finally deal to this conundrum pertaining to procurement. But I would say to the House, it’s not just a problem that we’ve made. It’s a problem that worsened over the last nine years.

Now, on the question of the amateur author otherwise known as the Opposition finance spokesman not understanding the English language in clause 9, I’d have to say I would direct his attention to the interpretation section: “ ’infrastructure’ means physical infrastructure … that results in services in New Zealand”; “ ’infrastructure projects’ … the creation of new infrastructure; … the maintenance, upgrading, replacement, decommissioning, or removal of existing infrastructure”. Now, I accept some human infrastructure was removed as a consequence of the last election, and may that condition long prevail.

So I think that the member’s making not only nonsense; he’s betraying the fact that despite having written many books that no one has actually read, he’s more than capable of deploying his skills in the English language to get a better set of contributions—a better set of contributions. So good content, a useful contribution, but, as of today, not something that I am able to muster enough support for in terms of voting for the SOP.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve just noted those comments from Minister Shane Jones, and I’ll return back to those in a little while. But I just wanted to talk about the wider issue, because when we’re talking about this bill and this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), we’re actually talking about 250,000 people directly employed in this industry, who are feeling very vulnerable and have done so for quite some time, partly because of what we do in central government but also what occurs in territorial authorities.

There were two things that Mr Michael Wood referred to, and I just want to rebut a couple of those things. The first thing is this issue around the discussion around the role of the Infrastructure Commission, and, basically, he was saying that it was highly debated at that period of time. I was just checking with my colleagues before. Look, the issue and the role of the Infrastructure Commission was widely debated, but about its function, and the function—as you know—in the bill as it currently stands is essentially one of an advisory function. The commission has no real teeth, and that’s where a lot of the discussion was centred. Certainly, I was one of those who called for greater powers around the issue of the Infrastructure Commission having greater powers, together with other members of that committee. That is why we were successful in getting the mandate spread in terms of obtaining information from councils. But in terms of the specifics around what’s proposed in the SOP, that was not widely traversed at all.

That is something that has arisen principally from the discussion last week at the Constructive forum, and I think from members—and particularly, I sense, from amongst Labour members—there is this view that “You know, it’s fine and we don’t need to worry about it before.” I just wish that you had been there to witness the experience of your Ministers—namely, the Hon Jenny Salesa and the Hon Phil Twyford—as they struggled to respond to specific questions about this very issue around why is their Government still, even as of last week, trying to impose these onerous contracts on them as members of the building and construction industry, and, specifically, this issue around the allocation of risk. If you were there, I’m sure that you would have a different view today, and you wouldn’t be talking in the way that you talk about this issue, as if it’s some unrelated, theoretical issue. It is the burning issue for the building and construction industry.

The second issue that you’ve raised is around the jurisdiction. Michael Wood talked about the issue of whether we should use our Auditor-General to do these types of roles, and he was saying that this is a replication. Well, I think there are three choices of who has the best capability to these types of work. The first one is the Auditor-General, but as he will well recall from the last time they did a review of this project, when we asked them about the specifics around what is best practice in procurement and why couldn’t they offer an opinion on that, what are the tendering techniques and why they couldn’t offer it—all the types of things that are covered in the SOP—they clearly said to us, as a committee, that they didn’t have the capability. They are, essentially, a financially driven audit, and that’s the role of an internal auditor or the Auditor-General.

The other one is that the infrastructure unit in Treasury has been largely disbanded and is now to be formed as part of the Infrastructure Commission. So the question you are asking and raising—and I’m just referring to Mr Michael Wood—is who is the best person or group who has the capacity and the capability. That is why this SOP gives that to the Infrastructure Commission, because they will have the capacity and capability. The third element, as I mentioned in one of my earlier speeches, is that they will also have the independence to be able to do this. At the moment, they have no specific mandate to do this, and they should have this mandate. It is what the building and construction sector is demanding and wants and needs, actually.

I am pretty disappointed, not from my perspective as the sponsor of the SOP, but I know that the Hon Shane Jones was very supportive of it and I know that the leader of the Greens was very supportive of it at a personal level. This is a bill that should go through, and I’ll be disappointed if we find that in time, the Government has played politics on this and that at a later date—even at third reading—they seek to introduce some changes, because the industry will not regard that well.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 363 in the name of Andrew Bayly to the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 362 in his name to Part 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Amendments to the amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 362 in the name of Andrew Bayly to Part 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment presently.

Bills

Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary provisions and establishment of Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities

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

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Other matters

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The debate is now on clauses 22 to 34 and Schedules 2 and 3—other matters.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to focus my contribution on clause 22, in Part 2. What this outlines is that the Government must issue a Government policy statement (GPS) on housing and urban development. This is something where we’ve made some changes to this particular clause as a result of some of the submissions received in select committee. So, basically, the original bill laid out that Ministers must issue a GPS on housing and urban development no later than 1 October 2020. However, because of the huge substance that would be required in setting out the Government policy statement, it was thought that that needed an extension, and so this has now been extended to no later than 1 October 2021, just because of the huge number of stakeholders who would need to be consulted on such an important document of this nature.

What Part 2 also outlines is the content and purpose of the GPS. Again, this is something that was changed as a result of select committee submissions, because in addition to outlining what should be in the GPS, a number of the submitters said that it was actually quite important to outline the overall purpose of the GPS. So what we’ve got there are a couple of new pieces being introduced, saying that in terms of the purpose of the GPS, it must state the Government’s overall direction and priorities for housing and urban development, and also inform and guide decisions and actions of agencies involved in the activities necessary or desirable for housing and urban development.

I think this is where the GPS is an incredibly important document, or it’s going to be, because I just think where it would have relevance is down south, where I’m living. Way back in the 1990s in Southland, we had over 800 State houses across our region, and then, as a result of ongoing State housing sales, just before the last election we were down to under 400 State houses in our region. The problem we’ve got is we’ve got an absolute shortage of State housing in our region, so people are really, really struggling to find a decent, warm, dry place to live, particularly those looking for social housing. I think the thing is that there wasn’t any overall, overarching strategic vision of where we were going in housing as a country and as a region, and so taking the eye off the ball over the last decade in terms of thinking about what our needs were for our community and also what we had in terms of the number of houses in our housing stock. So, basically, what this GPS will be incredibly important for is just creating that overall strategic direction of where we want to go in terms of provision of housing.

What the bill lays out is it also gives more detail on what the GPS is needing to include. What it must include is the Government’s overall direction for housing and urban development, and that must include a multi-decade outlook. That’s because it is going to take time, after such a long, long period of State housing sale, to build up our housing stock. It’s going to take time to build those houses and also to be thinking about where they’re best placed and who those in need of housing are, also thinking about a mixture of State housing but affordable housing and the different kinds of housing that are required to make a community thrive.

Then, basically, it also needs to outline the Government’s priorities for housing and urban development and how the Government expects Kāinga Ora to manage its functions and operations to meet the Government’s direction and priorities for housing and urban development. So it’s that broader overarching vision of where we’re going as a country, and thinking more in terms of Kāinga Ora’s operational responsibilities in terms of delivering that. It also outlines how the Government expects other agencies to support that direction and those priorities, because there’s a whole range of other agencies that are involved in the provision of housing and housing support and some of those things in terms of wrapping around—say, for example, with tenants in State housing.

Then, it also must outline the Government’s expectation in relation to Māori interests and partnering with Māori, and protections for Māori interests, and also how the Government expects Kāinga Ora to recognise the need for mitigation and adaptation to the effects of climate change. I think this is going to be incredibly important in terms of thinking with our strategic direction as climate change starts to impact in our communities, and thinking about where we’re having to place our housing stock, whether it needs to be relocated, and that’s where I think a multi-decade approach to housing is also going to be incredibly important. So I think Part 2 is incredibly important in terms of that broader vision of where we’re going in housing.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m always excited, as I say every time, to talk about housing and this Government’s programme, because, as we know, we inherited a housing crisis—and we’re not shy to say that. On that side of the House, though, they denied it for nine long years and neglected this fundamental issue of every Kiwi, every New Zealander, having a warm, dry home. But, look, we want to just get on with it and fix this housing crisis, and this work is a key part of that.

As we know, this is about bringing together our public housing component, which is none other than Housing New Zealand Corporation, together with HLC—Homes. Land. Community., formerly the Hobsonville Land Company—and, of course, the KiwiBuild function. Within those are synergies that we want to bring together and ensure a focused housing production and development effort, notwithstanding the ethos of a public housing service. That is the heart of this Government’s housing policy.

I want to focus on Part 2 and just endorse some of those comments that my colleague has talked about in terms of the Minister issuing a Government policy statement (GPS) on housing and urban development. We’ve heard already that the hard-working committee, the Environment Committee—and thanks to the members of that committee who were allocated this critical piece of work, because they certainly had a very close look. There were, I think, 90-something submissions, from memory. I haven’t got the paperwork here, but over 90 submissions into this, and some changes were made—appropriate changes, can I say, in terms of responding to those submissions.

We’ve heard about the Government policy statement having that multi-decade outlook, and can I say that that’s vital for housing. This shouldn’t be a Government-by-Government programme—

Angie Warren-Clark: Election cycle.

PAUL EAGLE: An election cycle—that’s the term I was looking for. Thank you, Angie Warren-Clark. It should take that long-term view, because it’s vital that this has a pipeline. We’ve just come off the back of the Infrastructure Commission. Housing wasn’t mentioned in that, but housing, of course, is infrastructure. This is vital to that, and ensuring that we can look at the housing continuum and every single aspect along there, whether it’s the homelessness, the array of the affordable housing—be it rental, key worker, or, say, a rent-to-own scheme, through to those seeking just to simply look at the homes they do own and make some additions or otherwise through a regulatory framework. All of those need to be part of that multi-decade outlook but tied to a long-term vision for the sector. That’s what the Government policy statement intention is, and that’s been included.

I can now see the link—and I won’t say it wasn’t obvious—in terms of putting it through the Environment Committee. There was no surprise when the expectation came back that there was a contribution to climate change mitigation and adaptation, and that’s important. I’m proud that the committee chose to ensure that this Government’s environmental vision is connected in a way where our public servants, those officials who do the mahi on the ground, will link that work into housing. Look, I haven’t got time to go—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m really sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for the dinner break.

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

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Urban Development): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to just make a few comments about Part 2. The main item in Part 2 is really the requirement that Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities introduce a Government policy statement (GPS). The motivation behind this provision in the bill is a recognition that the housing and urban development sector is one that has really lacked alignment, a shared sense of strategy, not only from within the Government system but within the broader community: local government, social service providers, community housing providers, and the private sector. This is a desire to see Government really exercising its leadership role and working across all those communities with some common objectives.

It’s inspired in large part by the success, I think, of the Government policy statement on land transport, which is set out in the Land Transport Management Act. The GPS, as it’s fondly known, is produced on a three-yearly cycle, generally in sync with the parliamentary term, and the Minister of Transport and the Ministry of Transport produce that Government Policy Statement on Land Transport every three years. They update it, it has a 10-year horizon, and it sets out the values, the vision, the long-term goals, the strategies, and priorities not only in the case of the Ministry of Transport and the Government’s delivery agency, the New Zealand Transport Agency, but it also sends signals to the Government’s partners, local government, and also to the wider transport communities, including the private sector. People pay a lot of attention to the transport GPS. It is basically the Bible. It sets the direction, and it’s a very powerful policy instrument.

So that was the inspiration for this provision in this bill, to have a GPS on housing and urban development. So it, essentially, will provide the riding instructions for Kāinga Ora on a three-yearly cycle. Of course, it’s not the only tool the Government has to do that. There’s also the Minister’s statement of performance expectations. There are all of the other tools of accountability and direction that Ministers use with Crown agents, but the GPS will be one of the most powerful tools. It sets the overall direction and priorities for the sector, and it tells Kāinga Ora and other agencies how the Government expects them to operate and how it expects them to meet those expectations. The Government policy statement by Kāinga Ora will be developed in consultation with stakeholders, and as is the case with the transport GPS, there are months and months of engagement, consultation, and discussion with stakeholders around the content of the GPS before it’s finalised.

I want to thank the Environment Committee for the work that they did in this area, and there’s a few useful improvements that it’s worth just pointing to. The committee asked that the housing and urban development GPS incorporate a multi-decade outlook. That’s not an unreasonable request given that infrastructure and our urban land markets and the construction markets work on very long cycles and when decisions are made and developments take place, they’ll often have a 50- to 100-year lifetime. So it’s appropriate that we’re thinking with that multi-decade horizon. Of course you’re going to have shorter-term priorities as well. You’re going to have things that you want to happen in the next six months, the next 12 months, the next two or three years, and that can coexist perfectly happily with the requirement for a multi-year time frame.

The committee’s also added a requirement that the GPS outlines how the Government expects Kāinga Ora to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation, and I wanted just to take a moment to reflect on that. In almost everything that Government does these days—there is a call for us to address the need for climate change adaptation and mitigation in almost everything that we do, and it’s very appropriate that Kāinga Ora does that as well. The future shape of our towns and cities has to take into account the effects of climate change. It’s not only low-lying housing on coastal strips by the beach and so on where, in some parts of the country, insurers are no longer wanting to insure those properties. I was part of a discussion just the other day looking at urban development and planning in the Waikato corridor, Hamilton to Auckland, and a lot of the existing towns, the river communities, are built on low-lying land close to a lot of water. They’re a long way from the coast, but, actually, under the scenarios for climate change, they’re likely to be affected by a rising water table. So that’s just one example of how our urban planning has to take into account climate change.

The other change to the GPS provisions made by the committee which I think was also pretty helpful was to extend the deadline for the first GPS by a year so that it must now be issued, in the first case, within two years of Kāinga Ora being established. That’s to ensure that what will be a pretty important job, one that we don’t want to rush, we want to be able to consult with all the stakeholders in the wider community—that the newly established Kāinga Ora, from 1 October, doesn’t have to rush that really important job; they need to take their time and do it properly. So the committee’s helpfully suggested an extra year in that case.

I will leave that there, but I am very happy to take questions and respond to members’ concerns as the debate goes on.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I’m delighted to call on this bill, and I do have some questions immediately for the Minister in the chair, Phil Twyford, around the nature of the Government policy statement (GPS) and its concreteness or otherwise in terms of the ability to be nimble, to seize on opportunities, and to respond to local changes in the environment. The Government’s overall directions and priorities for housing and urban development, presumably, are at a relatively high level, but, I guess, just how specific are these GPSs expected to be?

I’ll pick an example, which is South Dunedin. It’s known to be an area where climate change represents a very real threat. It is an area that has been marked by some political parties in this House as a focus for an urban development agency, a focus for attention as an area that needs to see a response that is beyond what the local government situation could deliver. It’s very clear that the threat is real, and I’ve seen some of the data at the regional council level where the tides dictate—I think it’s within a kilometre of the shore front at St Clair—the groundwater levels. They go up and down, and, if memory serves me right, it’s by metres a day, the groundwater levels, because the soil is permeable, there’s a lot of sand in there. The threat of climate change is real, and, indeed, the salinity of the water there has an effect as well.

And yet we know that no Government historically has really grappled with the challenge that that represents to the people that have invested there, that have bought houses, that have developed family connections to the area over generations now, that have invested in the family home, that are now facing those difficult decisions about where to go from here. I agree that it’s important to have a statement about what’s expected so that they can begin to shape expectations over a long period of time.

But my question, really, is around the degree of flexibility, because if the local council takes decisions on zoning of land or on the way in which it sees urban development changing over time, and that presents opportunities for Governments to move sooner or to make decisions later, what degree of flexibility is anticipated to be in the Government policy statement to respond to the local situations, or, indeed, if the situation fundamentally changes?

So in that example, we’ve had great big sandbanks and things, rocks have been placed at the shorefront and so on, when there have been threats to break through the banks there. There is an old rubbish dump that sits under land close to the ocean. Again, in overseas jurisdictions, there have been whole cities, really, that have been threatened by rising tides—low-lying cities. If the situation were to fundamentally change—and that’s not anticipated, and I certainly hope that it doesn’t, because I think any change there will need to be carefully managed in line with the community’s needs, and there are vulnerable people in that community—I’m interested to understand how the Government policy statement would be positioned to give the necessary flexibility to respond to immediate threats, how it would position a transition over time, what steps a Government could signal in the Government policy statement, and what would be more tactical decisions—if you like—what would be the kinds of decisions that we work through in the community as it prioritised how it responded, understanding local needs.

So, in particular, I guess, the challenge there as to how that sits alongside clause 24(1)(a): the idea that the Government’s overall direction must include a multi-decade outlook. So it’s impossible, in my view, to know quite how quickly some of these changes will happen or, indeed, if something catastrophic was to happen, like a sandbank was to move or break, or we had significant flooding, as has happened in the past in South Dunedin, what the impact would look like and what the tension would be with that multi-decade outlook.

Now, I say that thinking also of the engagement that will have been had with developers, and the necessity—and, I guess, this is coming to my second question, which is: what level of engagement has happened with developers in developing this policy? What signals has the Minister had in terms of the optimal time frame under clause 24(1)(a)? Clearly, it’s signalled that it’s going to be a multi-decade outlook; to what extent is that because industry wants the certainty of direction of travel for investment purposes, for hiring workforces, and so on? And how much certainty does the Minister think that he can give—or any future Minister can give—to that pipeline of work and the direction of travel, particularly around climate change issues?

We’ve got to accept that situations will change; threats can be more imminent. Certainly in Dunedin, the event of two floods that were each deemed to be—and I’m not now certain—I think, one in 100-year events, but they have twice happened in a short period of time, indicates that situations can change. Now, it may prove that they were not events that are going to happen as rapidly again, but certainly that is sharpening the mind.

I have another question—which is not related to the first two but which I would also appreciate a response from the Minister on—which is in respect of Part 2 clause 29(2)(b). There’s the little rider here, which talks about the provisions of this subpart relating to the preparation and availability of a Government policy statement “(a) apply with the necessary modifications to an amendment to the Government policy statement; but (b) do not apply if the amendment to the Government policy statement is not significant.” I guess the link I’m making here is: what counts as significant? Again, all of these situations that arise could be deemed to be significant or not significant. How is that judgment to be made as to what is significant, and will that dictate the preparation availability of the Government policy statement and the changes? Is there a test going to be applied in the guidance around preparing Government policy statements that will dictate what significance looks like? Is that simply at the judgment of those preparing the Government policy statement, as to what is significant and what is not significant or is there an existing test at law as to what constitutes significance in this circumstance?

And, I guess, finally: how has that been applied overseas in similar vehicles; how have they deemed what is a significant change to a Government policy statement? Do we have overseas examples of Government policy statements done well that we could be learning from, that the Minister has looked at or examined, or his officials have looked at? And do we have examples of Government policy statement - type documents that have proven not to be as flexible as is needed and that we would very much like to avoid as a country? I think part of the debate we’re having here is putting on record, probably, some of the guidance too to those who will be developing these documents; guidance as to how they will be interpreted in future years.

And this, I think, is a really significant change that we are making as a country. I ask these difficult questions not to be difficult to the Minister but because I believe this is really important legislation we’re passing here, which will shape the responses that have lacked.

So I do want to end with a positive note. This kind of guidance, this kind of certainty—and I do appreciate that a lot of this will be about giving industry certainty about giving those who are involved in our urban planning certainty—has lacked in our country. And that’s how we’ve ended up in situations where we do have huge challenges around the country in respect of climate change and in respect of all kinds of infrastructure shortages and so on.

So I’m very interested to hear what we can learn from those overseas jurisdictions as well. And I want to congratulate the Minister for the work that he has done on this bill, because this is a really important piece of legislation that will change the shape of New Zealand—I absolutely accept that. So those questions are meant as questions for refinement and to illuminate for those who will interpret this legislation in time to come. I congratulate the Minister on his good work and the groundbreaking changes that are going to be passing through this House. I’m very pleased to support the bill, but I do wish to have those questions answered. Thank you.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Urban Development): Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me just respond to some of those points raised by the Hon David Clark, who asked about whether or not the Government policy statement will have a level of agility and flexibility attached to it and what kind of engagement has been had with developers in crafting the provisions in Part 2. And, secondly, clause 29(2)(b), the question about whether an amendment is significant or not, and therefore would need to be consulted.

It’s probably worthwhile, for this discussion, just to kind of step back a second and just remind members and anyone listening to this that there are two main things that we’re asking Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities to do. There are two main functions that the organisation will have—I should say three, actually. The first is that it will be the home of public housing, so it is the new organisation that will inherit this great 100-year legacy in New Zealand of public housing; of the Government acting—when the market fails—to build and own and rent quality housing for people who would otherwise struggle to in the market.

The second is that we are building, in Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities, the capacity to deliver the Government build programme. Our Government shares an ambition that many Governments have had in the past in New Zealand, and that is to ensure that, alongside the private sector, we’re using the levers available for the State to ensure that there is an adequate supply of the kind of quality housing that people want in places where they need it. And that’s why we’re amalgamating HLC—the people who brought us Hobsonville Point—with the KiwiBuild procurement team, and the construction and development element that currently exists within Housing New Zealand.

Those three functions are being merged together to create one powerful entity to drive the Government build programme that includes public housing, emergency housing, affordable housing, partnering with community housing providers, the building of KiwiBuild affordable homes, and the market homes that will sit alongside all those different kinds of homes and tenures in large-scale development projects.

The third key function is the ability in the special powers that will follow in the second bill after this to undertake large-scale urban development projects: so the likes of a Hobsonville, a Tāmaki. The member David Clark referred to South Dunedin, which I want to talk a little bit about because there is a really interesting example. In fact, over the last several years, as we’ve been discussing this policy and developing it, we’ve often talked about South Dunedin as a place that would benefit from precisely this kind of mechanism that we’re setting up here: a public agency that has access to all of the powers that local government currently has of land-use regulation, network infrastructure, transport, the three waters, parks and reserves, amalgamating land titles, financing, raising revenue to support investment—to do all of these things and to be a joint venture vehicle through which Government and central government could, and even private investors and iwi could be part of it, tackle some of the more complex and challenging land-use issues of our time.

Now, South Dunedin is a community that is desperately in need of an upgrade to its housing stock and its infrastructure and faces some real challenges, environmental challenges, caused by very low lying land and the threats posed by rising sea levels. South Dunedin is one place that could really benefit from this kind of approach. The member asked: would this legislation and would Kāinga Ora have through its Government policy statement (GPS) the kind of agility and the flexibility to respond to things that might happen like the floods that happened in Dunedin that might spark, for instance, a local authority to say, “We need to act. We need to do something about this.”

I guess the best response I can give is that when I look at the transport GPS it does provide that flexibility. It sets out high-level goals. It actually sets out activity classes—so spending bands for a three-year programme with a range of spending possibilities against different activity classes in the transport budget. But it gives the Crown agent—in this case Kāinga Ora; in that case the New Zealand Transport Agency—the flexibility to operate within those bands. It sets out the policy goals, the priorities, the analysis that underpins the strategy, but it empowers—

Andrew Bayly: This is marvellous.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I’m glad the member agrees.

Andrew Bayly: We just hope you will have the opportunity for other Ministers to speak, because we need them all down in the House tonight.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I’m glad the member agrees. It gives the Crown agency the ability to operate within those parameters, so I think it does, in fact, provide plenty of flexibility and agility.

David Clark asked whether there’d been any engagement with developers and, in fact, there has been—in fact, in the lead-up to the drafting of the legislation a lot of dialogue with the developers in the private sector. And in the oral submissions at select committee both the Property Council and Infrastructure New Zealand, the lobby group that represents the private sector infrastructure industry, supported at the committee a GPS with a long-term vision that is more than 10 years. And as the member alluded, I think a lot of that has to do with their desire to see a long-term pipeline of work and some stability and consensus. One of the benefits of the GPS and having a Crown agent that exercises some autonomy at arm’s length to a degree from the day-to-day accountability to the Minister is the desire to try to take some of the politics out of it, to build consensus and public support around the long-term strategy, and to a degree that’s also part of the strategy here.

My sense is that the GPS will actually set some of the priorities. An example might be: what kind of large-scale projects should Kāinga Ora focus on? So there are a number of choices here. We could focus on greenfield projects on the edge of town: some projects in places like Hamilton, in places like Rotokauri North. In places like Tauranga it could be Te Tumu and Tauriko West. Or, the GPS, for example, might say, “We think the priority is to do urban intensification projects in the urban half of the city.”, which is what this organisation is tooled up to do. So all those things are possible.

It’s also the case that the special powers that will follow in the next bill will allow not just residential projects but actually urban development or regeneration: for instance, shifting a port, something that’s very dear to the heart of our colleagues in New Zealand First; or reworking an old industrial area to build a stadium or some new kind of economic activity. So I think there’s plenty of flexibility within the GPS to both set direction but also leave Kāinga Ora and all of the other organisations in the sector the ability to respond to day-to-day events.

Finally, David Clark asked about clause 29(2)(b) and my understanding and my advice is that all that that provision means is that if there is a change that is minor and technical in nature no consultation is required. And so the test there is whether it’s anything more than minor and technical, and if it is significant then it would require consultation.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Thank you, Madam Chair. Oh, Madam Chair, that’s a beautiful expression. I am delighted to have a chance just to contribute a little to this discussion tonight. The reason is that this bill came in to the Environment Committee round about May this year when I was chair of the committee and got the work on this bill under way—you know, the submissions and then getting them in. I heard some of the submissions on the bill, but as we were partway through that process of hearing submissions and getting really into the nitty gritty of working out what was going to be done with the bill, we had a bit of a shuffle around and I moved over to chairing the Finance and Expenditure Committee and so I was no longer sitting on the Environment Committee, so I missed the opportunity to really understand some of the details in this bill. I had read the bill as it was but I hadn’t seen the changes that the select committee suggested for it and they are quite interesting, particularly around the Government policy statement (GPS) and some of the links between the Kāinga Ora bill and some of the other bills that we’ve been working on in this House, and I’m interested to know from the Minister to what extent the progress of the bills has influenced each other.

I would like to direct the Minister’s attention, in particular, to clause 24 of the bill, which is talking about the purpose of the GPS and there are two issues there that intrigued me. It sets the overall direction and priorities—so that’s in clause 24(1AAA)(a) and (b)—but then in clause 24(1)(a) the “multi-decade outlook:”. What it made me consider was the links between the thinking around this bill and the thinking around the Infrastructure Commission bill, because they are both focussing on that long-term outlook, and I guess I want to know from the Minister to what extent he would expect that some of the findings of the Infrastructure Commission or the reports from there might influence what would go on in the context of the GPS issued under this bill, the Kāinga Ora bill, and, in particular, again that multi-decade outlook. Our colleague Dr Clark has talked about that this evening, but I was thinking, “Well, ‘multi-decade’—how many years are we expecting the GPS to go over?” The Infrastructure Commission talks in terms of 30 years, I think, but it is that sort of time horizon in where we are thinking. So I’m interested in that, and those links between the bills.

The other one that I am interested in is clause 24A—and these are all things that have been inserted by the Environment Committee so I’m quite interested. In clause 24A(a), it talks about “that the GPS promotes a housing and urban development system that contributes to the current and future well-being of New Zealanders;”. Again, that’s quite interesting in the context of the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill, which had its first reading in this House just yesterday evening. It’s not just the word “wellbeing” that sits in there that triggers the connection—obviously, that’s a very clear signal that these two entities are linked. But, of course, it’s also that focus on communities, and understanding how communities develop, and what communities need, and what their expectations are, and what works best to support communities and developments—especially in that wellbeing context. Again, I’m interested to understand the links between this bill and the wellbeing approach which is going to be introduced into the Public Finance Act. I guess it signifies a lot of joined-up thinking, which we know is something that Government is always interested in doing to make sure that Ministers and agencies don’t operate in silos.

So I am looking for some comment from the Minister on the work that he has done with his colleagues and, I guess, also the extent to which officials may have been communicating with each other about how to link up these three bills which, to my mind, do have a very clear relationship to each other and do guide us in a much more interesting direction in housing policy.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): I have got a couple of questions for the Minister, but first of all I want to look at Subpart 2—“Other enactments”. I think this bill is historical in the sense that it actually repeals the Housing Corporation Act of 1974. Now, this is a 35-year-old Act so it’s about time it was updated, but this was a really innovative piece of legislation when it came in because what it did—the Housing Corporation New Zealand—

Hon Dr David Clark: 45 years, isn’t it?

Hon STUART NASH: Well, maybe my maths is wrong—45, you’re dead right, Mr Clark—45-year-old piece of legislation, therefore, it really is overdue. But what the housing corporation did is it brought the State Advances Corporation and the housing division of the Ministry of Works together to form the housing corporation. The housing corporation was sort of synonymous with State housing so, you know, some people talked about growing up in a State house, others talked about growing up in a housing corporation house, and this piece of legislation repeals the Housing Corporation Act of 1974.

I suppose, if you look at the history of State house innovation in this country you had the first Labour Government, obviously, with the massive State house programme that went on under Michael Joseph Savage and Peter Fraser, you had the second massive State house building programme under Norman Kirk, and then you had the sixth Labour Government with Phil Twyford, under the Ardern Government. So this really is a very innovative piece of legislation that is driving change in a way that is needed after 45 years of sort of tinkering around the edges. So I do congratulate you, Minister, on the fact that the bill that you have brought to the House is so important. It is repealing what is an iconic piece of legislation. In fact, if you look at Wikipedia it actually says one of the major initiatives of the Kirk Government was the formation of the housing corporation.

I’d also like to commend the Minister, because there are a couple of other titles of pieces of legislation or regulations that have changed, and the fact that these regulations—they used to be the public housing management appeals regulations—are now the public and community. So we’re recognising that it’s not just about the public, it’s not just about the State, it’s about our communities. This is where decisions are made; it is at community levels, because it’s only through creating health and wellbeing in our communities that we will grow a decent and prosperous society. So well done on that, Minister, in terms of getting the nuances right.

There are a couple of questions I have. I do note, as the Minister himself has highlighted, that initially the Government policy statement (GPS) was to report back in October this year, but it has been pushed out a year. But I also note that the Environment Committee made a change where—the policy statement had to be updated at least every 10 years, but that’s moved back to three years. I know this is obviously a significant piece of work or else the select committee would not have allowed you an extra year to develop a Government policy statement, but with such a statement I wonder why, in fact, it has moved from a 10-year update to a compulsory three-year update when it’s actually got—in the legislation it actually says “The Minister may review the [Government policy statement] at any time”. So if it was 10 years, the Minister still had the ability to review it. But I wondered if, in fact, the select committee felt that it must be reviewed every three years, or what the reason was behind that?

The other thing I note, clause 28—it talks about the availability of the GPS, and this is where we bring in a level of transparency, because what it says is that “(1) … the Ministers must—(a) present a copy of the GPS to the House of Representatives;”, but it says “As soon as practicable”. Whenever I see those words—I mean, I support this, don’t get me wrong, please don’t get me wrong, but what does “As soon as practicable” mean? Are we talking about a six-month time frame before the Government policy statement is actually being presented and delivered, or are we talking about the next sitting week? Now, there is an element here, because what we don’t want to have happen is in 15 years’ time we have a National Government obfuscate—

Angie Warren-Clark: 20 years.

Hon STUART NASH: —because they don’t think—or 20 years—that the Government policy statement will pass the sniff test, so they’ll just say, “Oh, it’s ‘As soon as practicable’. We’re not going to deliver this.”. So we want to ensure that “As soon as practicable” actually has a pretty well-defined time frame from a Minister’s perspective. I would suggest that once it’s been delivered and presented and all the objectives are met it’s probably, I don’t know, the next sitting week? That would be my expectation, but maybe the Minister has an expectation because it also says here: “The chief executive must make the GPS publicly available as soon as practicable.”. I’m assuming it’s possibly the same time it’s presented to the House, but if there isn’t there may be a reason. But that’s all, Minister. A couple of simple questions there, and I’m sure he’ll have answers. I just want to reiterate: congratulations on replacing the Housing Corporation Act, this is pivotal.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. [Interruption] There was such a—

Hon Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Madam Chair. My question might have been answered, Madam Chair, sorry to interrupt. I could not hear, over the cries of “Marvellous” from the Opposition, who was actually taking the call. I noticed some of my colleagues sat down and stood up again, likewise because they couldn’t hear who took the call.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): It’s because I have such a quiet voice, Dr Clark. Angie Warren-Clark has the call.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Thank you, Madam Chair. Gosh, it’s great to get a call. It took some time; I’ve been jumping up and down for quite a number of minutes now. I want to, first of all, begin with congratulating the Minister as well. This is an absolutely transformational piece of legislation and as a member of the Environment Committee I have to say it was a real pleasure to look at this piece of legislation and to be part of the Government making this significant shift.

We are not going to be talking about Part 1, but I do have to just acknowledge the fact that, as Minister Nash has noted, we are removing or getting rid of Housing New Zealand—putting them into this body. It’s all about moving forward. It must be wonderful for those staff to be in such a journey, moving forward.

Look, I’m going to have a talk about the purpose of the Government policy statement (GPS) tonight, and a lot of people have already raised the issues that I had questions about. Having sat on the select committee, we have quite a few answers in there. However, I wanted to just note around the overall direction around the multi-decade outlook. This was an issue that we discussed quite at length in the select committee, and we talked about: what does multi-decade mean? It came down to a normal definition. However, the intent behind the discussion was really about the fact that we have a plan going forward as a Government and that the GPS looks at a long-term view. Now, we know what we inherited. We know we inherited this mess—this homelessness mess. We know that it’s going to take a long time to fix this mess, but this is the beginning of this transformation, and I’m so very proud that we’ve got here.

I want to also acknowledge the submitters who came and spoke to us with such hope, and that was across the whole sector. They spoke to us with such hope and such positivity around what the content of this bill was about, and they wanted to work in partnership. They’ve been asking for it, and now we are giving them that.

So I wanted to just address that multi-decade outlook, but I also wanted to raise—which hasn’t been raised—clause 24(1)(e) “the Government’s expectations in relation to Māori interests, partnering with Māori, and [the] protections [of] Māori interests:”. So in Part 1 of the bill, we built in a clause. It’s not a standard Treaty clause; it’s actually a clause with a little bit more specialness to it. So it talks about the Treaty of Waitangi and the principles, and so I would be interested in the Minister explaining to this House—for the benefit of, perhaps, the Opposition, who have not yet risen to take a call on this transformational piece of legislation—how that is intended to occur. I think it’s really important, because, essentially, we are looking—when this GPS is written—around consulting with local government, other Government agencies, Māori and mana whenua, infrastructure providers, developers, community housing providers, and other essential partners. So there is this huge list, but, particularly in regards to the special place for tangata whenua and the Treaty of Waitangi, I’d be very interested in the Minister talking to that point and expressing how that will be carried out.

With that, I have another couple of calls that I’m going to take a little bit later, but, with that, thank you, Minister.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Before I call the next member, can I just advise that I have alerted the Minister to the fact that he’s not likely to answer the questions just posed by the member at the very tail end of his speech, because they’re in Part 1. The rest of the speech was perfectly in order, addressing Part 2, but the question you asked right at the end, Angie Warren-Clark, was related to Part 1.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): It’s a pleasure to talk again on this bill, and I want to focus again on the Government policy statement (GPS), because I think it’s incredibly important in terms of seeing that strategic direction for housing and urban development in New Zealand.

Basically, as we’ve already mentioned, this has actually been extended by one year. So what the legislation says at the moment—what the bill says—is a Minister “must issue a GPS on housing and urban development no later than 1 October 2021.” The bill also outlines who must be consulted in terms of developing that GPS, and it’s not only Kāinga Ora itself but it’s also any people or groups with an interest in housing or urban development. It’s really important that we take that time, because this is something that’s incredibly significant for our country.

I’d just like to read you, in the Auckland Council submission, some of their thoughts on the GPS. They said, “We believe the GPS needs to set out a clear direction for Kāinga Ora … and help the agency to prioritise and focus its efforts where they will have the most impact. Without this guidance there is a risk that the agency will be spread too thinly across multiple locations which will hamper its ability to implement programmes efficiently and effectively. The GPS therefore has an important role to play in setting clear expectations and priorities for the new entity across the complex urban and housing system.” They also go on to say, “This will also help provide certainty to developers, communities and local government.” I think Auckland Council was thinking about the direction that the GPS would be providing Kāinga Ora, but I also think that when we’ve got the purpose and the content of the GPS outlined in the bill, what it talks about is that much more broader approach as well, because it’s not just Kāinga Ora but it’s our whole housing and urban development that we’ll be looking at in terms that strategic direction.

So the purpose that’s been introduced into the bill is that it’s to “state the Government’s overall direction and priorities for housing and urban development;” and also to “inform and guide the decisions and actions of agencies involved in, and the activities necessary or desirable for, housing and urban development.”

I think, just reflecting, we haven’t actually seen yet—because it’s still to be developed under consultation—what these priorities may be. But I think, linking back to Part 1 of the bill, where the bill outlines its operating principles, it’d be just nice to get the Minister’s reflection on, as we think about the GPS moving forward, how many of those operating principles will be underpinning and incorporated in that, because I think there’s a number of them that I think are particularly relevant.

I think the first one in the operating principles in clause 14(1)(a) is “providing good quality, warm, dry, and healthy rental housing:”. I mean, this is something with the housing crisis that we’ve inherited—this is one of the things: there’s a huge need for warm, dry, affordable rental accommodation. Where I live down south, it’s an incredible acute shortage, and it is, it sounds like, around the country. So having this in a GPS, and thinking about how we make sure, in our broader strategic direction, that we’ve got sufficient rental housing of a good quality to meet people’s housing needs is incredibly important.

Then, some of the other operating principles which relate to ensuring housing supply meets needs I think are probably quite important. One of them is clause 14(1)(e) “managing its housing stock prudently, including upgrading and managing its housing to ensure it remains fit for purpose:”—so thinking through how we make sure we’ve got that fit for purpose housing.

Then the second one is clause 14(1)(f) “ensuring that the housing it develops is appropriately mixed”—so that’s public, affordable, and market housing—“and is of good quality:”. I think, again, it’s thinking about, if we’re doing these urban development projects, making sure that we do we do have that mix of housing, because we’re not just creating houses; we’re creating a community, and we’re making a community of people that are going to be coming together and living and sharing a lot of time together in that community.

I think the other thing that we’ve put into the operating principles: we’ve had the need to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change. I think this is incredibly important, and that’s not only in the operating principles but it’s also outlined in Part 2 of the bill, where it outlines what the GPS must include. Among the other things it’s talking about is a multi-decade approach, and this is where we’ve got to set that broader vision, because this infrastructure will take time to develop. But it also says that it must include how the Government expects Kāinga Ora to recognise the need to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change, because a lot of our housing in our country is within a few metres of sea level rise but also a lot of our basic infrastructure—our roads and our airports—are the same. It’s going to be really important to take that multi-decade approach in terms of thinking where we’re putting our housing in the bigger picture. So thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Urban Development): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to respond to a number of the points that have been made by the last few speakers, starting with Dr Deborah Russell, who very interestingly asks the extent to which this bill has been influenced by Te Waihanga Bill—the infrastructure commission bill that we were debating earlier this afternoon—and also the work that’s being done in amending the Public Finance Act to incorporate this governance approach to putting wellbeing at the heart of our work.

So there’s no question, actually, that there has been a lot of joined-up thinking in relation to infrastructure and housing. I think that these two moves—(1) to establish the Infrastructure Commission to lift the level of the performance of Government and the private sector together in the way that we plan, invest, and build the infrastructure that our country needs, and (2) this bill, establishing a new delivery agency for the built environment, to build the Government’s housing programme and also to undertake large-scale and complex urban development projects.

These are two really groundbreaking institution-building efforts. Without a doubt, we recognise that infrastructure plays a critical role in the building and the growth of our towns and cities, first in the sense that unless we include and plan for and invest in the infrastructure that strong communities need—good transport connections, environmental protection, the three waters, civic amenities, access to jobs—then we’re not actually doing justice to the aspirations and the needs of future generations. But secondly, unless we can build more infrastructure, particularly transport and the three waters, that will allow towns and cities to grow, we’ll never see the expansion in the housing supply that we desperately need. I could name a dozen different developments around the country today that are held up because we’re struggling to fund and finance the transport infrastructure, whether it’s roads or rail or whatever, that allows those communities to go ahead, both in greenfields locations and in brownfields locations. So joining up infrastructure planning with expansion of the housing supply is absolutely critical, so there are very strong connections between those two.

The member also cited the clause in the bill about the current and future wellbeing of New Zealanders—that the housing and urban development system should be geared to the current and future wellbeing. I think that’s a really, really important sentence in this bill. First, it acknowledges that there is a housing and urban development system. It is not just a random collection of some developers building houses here and the Government doing some State housing over there; it’s actually one complex system that is highly integrated, and we have to recognise it in that way. The other thing is that we’re locating this entire effort around wellbeing—the wellbeing of our families, communities, and future generations—and that is the purpose of what we’re trying to do.

That links very nicely to Liz Craig’s question before, where she asked about the extent to which the operating principle set out in clause 14 in Part 1 of the bill—and asked, really, what is the connection between those operating principles and the Government policy statement? Well, the operating principles are specifically for public housing. They are this Government’s charter for public housing for the 21st century. They’re a rejection of the idea that the Government should just sell off public housing and get someone else to do it. They are an assertion of the idea that public housing is a core role of Government and that we should do it in certain ways—you know, supporting tenants “to be well connected to their communities”, “to lead lives with dignity and the greatest degree of independence possible”, “to sustain tenancies”. This goes to the heart of this Government’s philosophy about public housing, and those values about wellbeing, about manaakitanga, about kaitiakitanga, they will be reflected, they will be front and centre in the Government policy statement, because that’s how we will be communicating the values and what we stand for.

I want to go back to Stuart Nash’s comment. He pointed out that the bill repeals the Housing Corporation Act 1974. That 1974 Act, in fact, as the member said, was a merger of State Advances Corporation with the existing housing organisation that created what we knew as housing corp for many, many years. I think it’s fair to say that this bill is a kind of a generational change, much like that bill was back then, and it reflects our generation’s view that public housing, State housing, and community housing has to be fully integrated and at the heart of everything we do to build new communities and new towns. So it’s our expectation, through Kāinga Ora, and this will be communicated through the Government policy statement, that every time the Government is involved in building new communities—whether it’s Drury in South Auckland, whether it’s Tauriko West in the Bay of Plenty, whether it’s the Unitec development in Mount Albert, whether it’s Porirua East in the Wellington region—State and community housing, public housing, should be fully integrated always into new developments. We don’t believe that State housing is just welfare housing of last resort and it should be concentrated in ghettos in the poorest part of town, furthest away from the jobs and the amenities. That is not our philosophy.

As well as repealing the Housing Corporation Act 1974, we’re doing some other, I think, quite exciting things with this bill. We are abolishing the provisions that the former National Government passed to facilitate the mass sell-off of State housing. That is very significant. Any future Government that comes in and wants to sell off large quantities of State housing, as the former Government did, then they will have to change the law explicitly to allow that, because this bill takes away those provisions.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on Part 2 of this Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities Bill. Just to reiterate the point just made by the Hon Phil Twyford—he’s sat down—about the proud legacy that New Zealand has of supplying social housing. I note that in the bill it’s not just “Kāinga Ora—Homes”; it is “and Communities”, because housing is an important part of communities, and we know that to get good social outcomes we need good, stable homes, and for too many of our citizens, that is not their reality. This bill will go some way to addressing that. The laissez-faire model that we have had probably over the last 10 or 20 years has, essentially, failed us, or certainly failed the people of more modest means, and has been subject to three-year election cycles.

What I like about the Government policy statement (GPS) is this multi-decade horizon and thinking. I’ve just been sitting in on the zero carbon bill on some of the big issues around mitigation and adaptation, and submitter after submitter has been coming in and, while commending the bill, has also been talking about the need for us at a public level to be looking at adaptation and how public planning facilitates that, and this bill does exactly that. I guess that the example before of South Dunedin that Dr Clark brought up in his contribution is a very, very good example of that.

Of course, this is a precursor to a second tranche of legislation that will help with large-scale urban development that builds on that theme. It’s almost like we’ve got in the Hon Phil Twyford a cross between Savage and Muldoon, with this “think big” and social housing focus that he’s got—a hybrid of that. He’s obviously bringing some action and some planning, getting rid of some red tape, and taking some of these big hairy issues on head-on, and putting the power of the State behind that. Also, of course, it’s addressed here and has been discussed about the Infrastructure Commission and how it ties in with that, in that forward-looking—so we’ve got our transport and the like lined up with our housing, and that’s the benefit of these multi-year time frames that we’re looking at.

I noticed the question asked by the Hon Stuart Nash was not answered about the three-year intervals for the reviews. I too looked at that. Is that an arbitrary number? As a relatively new member—is that just a standard number that was put in? So I’d be interested in hearing the answer to that.

I was also interested in clause 24(2), which says, “The GPS may include any other matters the Minister considers relevant.” To me, that sounds like sweeping powers, and maybe the Muldoon analogy had been taken a little bit far, and I just wonder whether you were trying to slip a clause in there to put some wide-ranging, sweeping powers in there that maybe we’re not quite alert to as a Parliament, so I would like to get some reassurance from you that there is some control around what that might be.

So that was some of the major issues. I also looked at clause 27: “This subpart does not limit other provisions relating to directions in the Crown Entities Act 2004.” I’m not familiar with that Act and I just wonder—it’s a very general question, but I wonder if you could give a summary as to what that actually means in terms of what directions that is not limiting. That sounds pretty wide ranging as well, so maybe the Minister would like to give us a summary. He may need his officials. I realise it’s probably a reasonably unfair question, to expect him to know that off the top of his head, although he may well do so.

Madam Chair, I do thank you for allowing me to ask some of these pressing questions. I think they’re important. This is going to be a very significant bill. It’s long overdue. It will be again this wellbeing theme that’s coming from our Government, and we continue to support this bill through this process.

ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Motion not agreed to.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Look, I want to thank you this evening for allowing us to, I guess, engage in such a robust discussion on Part 2 of this bill. This is, as the Chair will be aware and this committee will be aware—in fact, everybody watching this debate will be aware just how significant housing issues in New Zealand have become. It’s because of these housing issues that we are here this evening to go through in some detail, I might add, I guess, some of the more pivotal legislation that will enable this Government to transition the current housing regulatory environment towards something that is transformational and will have well-felt impacts on the ground.

Now, I guess, for me, as I didn’t have the opportunity to sit on the select committee, but I did have a lot of questions—and I had a lot of questions about, in particular, Part 2 of this bill, because of the exemplary submissions that were received across a whole wide array of particulars and particular details that came through. My question’s to the Minister. Minister, there are a range of reforms that I note, and I’m going to work through relatively systematically so that it’s easy for you, of course, to take note and, I guess, answer my questions in turn.

Now, if I turn to clause 22(1), the original date there that was proposed about when the Minister must make or issue a Government policy statement (GPS) on housing and urban development was 1 October 2020. So that would be next year. Now, I note that that has been extended by a year. As I’ve been going through the submissions, and there are numerous submissions—probably in excess of 100 or so—I was ardently looking for a submitter that proposed an amendment to that particular time. Just noting the gravity of the housing environment and wanting to reset the housing situation that we have in New Zealand, I would be interested just to understand the transition there as to why the proposal of an extension for a year has been put there.

Then, if I turn to subclause (2) of that same provision, there’s been an inclusion there that says that the Minister can review at any time. I’m just wanting to understand why the discretion “at any time”. That seems to be a relatively broad—well, it’s absolutely broad and relatively uncommon to see in this type of legislation, so I was interested in your views there, in particular.

But, actually, as I went through the submissions, something came through from my home patch in the Bay of Plenty. I noticed that all of the local body councils in the Bay of Plenty—in particular, Western Bay of Plenty, Bay of Plenty and, who else, Tauranga District Council—submitted on this bill and some made some relatively persuasive submissions, I thought, in regards to clause 23. Now, clause 23 has been omitted from this current piece of legislation that we’re debating this evening. But I guess the tenor of the submissions put forward from those councils in my patch of the woods was about linking in particular the GPS and the process to go about, I guess, making sure that the GPS settings were linked to other instrumental planning instruments, of course, that flow through from other pieces of legislation like the Resource Management Act, national policy statements, environmental impact statements, and the like. I’d be interested, because that provision has been deleted, whether there are any other subclauses within this bill that deal to that point in particular. I guess it’s about synchronicity or—[Time expired]

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): Actually, I apologise to my colleague for cutting her off, but I want to endorse all the comments that have made on this side of the Chamber to the Minister for your leadership, in particular with the Government policy statement (GPS), because it was a result of some pretty careful thinking about what would best reflect the strategic approach to the housing aspirations of the Government within new legislation that you innovatively inserted the concept of a GPS.

I wanted to highlight that, because what that did in itself, and for anyone who is listening to the debate, is it elevated the responsibility of a Government to actually set out what the strategic plan is in terms of its housing strategy. But given that we have a very complex planning environment, that there are challenging land assembly, land availability aspects in order to ensure that good housing development can happen in urban areas, the GPS is well positioned to actually cover many of those things.

When we look at clause 24, it sets out what the GPS must include. I wanted to pick up briefly on a comment started by my colleague Angie Warren-Clark and raise a further question with the Minister in so far as clause 24(1)(e) says: “The Government’s expectations are in relation to Māori interests, partnering with Māori, and protections for Māori interests:”, because I know that the substance of the bill—and while we’re not on any other part, but the substance of the bill actually highlights some elements that cut to this particular clause around having regard for Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 and the way in which those interests must be considered within the context of a GPS and planning around those communities.

The other question I had was around the level of public engagement. Clause 24A(b) sets out “consult Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities and persons, and representative groups of persons, who have an interest in housing and urban development in New Zealand.” and that applies to when the GPS is being prepared.

Now, that’s a real different shift in thinking in terms of engaging the public in a conversation around a strategic document setting out the aspirations of what the Government will commit to in the housing space. I believe that holds faith with many New Zealanders who want to see smart urban development, who want to be engaged in that question, who want to ensure that their high value priorities are taken account of. So, Minister, if you could perhaps highlight how you see the level of engagement in the GPS occurring, I’m sure many people who are listening to the debate will be encouraged by that insertion within the bill.

The other component of the GPS—and it has been somewhat covered previously—was the Minister’s call around what would be reviewable. Would the whole GPS be reviewable? Would you pick out parts of the GPS for specific reasons to actually have a more intensive look, and what might you gain from that? But, underpinning a review of the GPS, could we be assured—could the Minister assure the committee—that the metrics used to, I guess, assess the strategy and the deliverables would remain consistent, or would they be changed over time as well? I know many of these things you’ve given quite considered thought to, and it would be a real opportunity for people who are listening to the debate, again, to gain greater insight as to why the GPS approach was favoured in order to set out the strategic aspirations of the Government and how it will achieve its housing priorities and investment.

There is a small but germane clause—part of clause 24(2)—which reads, “The GPS may include any other matters the Ministers consider relevant.” Now, we have covered some of those issues. It could be in relation to climate change and the impact on communities. But, again, to assure the committee around some of the thinking that underpins that particular clause, is this a wide scope of matter or is this more germane to housing-specific issues or what? I think that would be a very helpful set of questions for the Minister to respond to. But, finally, for the innovation to insert the GPS into this legislation, Minister Twyford, you can take all the credit.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon Members: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The debate needs to be relevant. It needs to be fresh. It needs to ask the Minister genuine questions if further calls are being taken.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this. I’ve been caught up in meetings throughout this debate; so I’m delighted that it is still going, and it gives me the opportunity to ask some questions of the Minister very relevant to this particular part of the bill.

I am in particular interested in clause 22, around the Government policy statement (GPS), because I come at it from a Wairarapa perspective. In 1999, the National Government of the time sold every single State house in the Wairarapa region—every single one—and ever since then there has not been a Housing New Zealand presence. So I am intrigued as to the requirement, under clause 22, that Ministers may review the GPS at any time. They must review the GPS at intervals that are no more than three years apart. And I would like to know why that is three years and not longer. What provisions within this—

Tim van de Molen: We’ve already had this question. Didn’t the member listen to the answer?

Dan Bidois: The Minister’s already answered this part.

KIERAN McANULTY: —specifically around GPS can we possibly be able to include to prevent a future National Government from selling social houses. Now, they may make noises, but we don’t have to look very far to see an example of a National Government selling State houses.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I think what they’re actually doing is drawing attention to the comment I made, prior to taking your call, that the contribution now, at a quarter to nine, should be fresh and relevant, and it hasn’t been so far.

KIERAN McANULTY: Oh, really? Well, I’m shocked by that.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I understand—[Interruption] Excuse me. I understand that you did miss the debate, which will make it harder for you to know what has already been debated, but I can advise you that that point has been. So let’s try something new.

KIERAN McANULTY: OK, OK. Thank you to colleagues across the House for talking about the selling of Wairarapa State houses previously. I appreciate that! The specific mention here in clause 24—I ask the Minister around the overall direction and priorities. Could he please take the opportunity to outline how that provision—the overall direction and priorities—will prevent the sale of State houses in the future? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Urban Development): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to reply to a question that the Hon Nanaia Mahuta raised in relation to clause 24(1)(e), which states that the Government policy statement (GPS) on housing and urban development must include, among other things, “the Government’s expectations in relation to Māori interests, partnering with Māori, and protections for Māori interests”. I think it’s worth spelling that out a little bit. It is one of these issues that will be dealt with in a lot more detail in the companion bill, which we hope to table in the House soon, which will include all the special powers that Kāinga Ora will have to undertake large-scale development projects.

One of the central insights of the last two years of work that we’ve done in this area is that not only are tangata whenua affected more dramatically by the housing crisis than almost any other population group—and we see that in very high rates of Māori homelessness. There’s a very significant percentage of Māori who are on the public housing waiting list, and we know that Māori households experience disproportionately poor quality, cold, damp housing and overcrowding. So Māori are really at the sharp of the housing crisis, and we know that Māori organisations, including iwi organisations, are stepping up to be part of the solution. So that’s why it’s very important that the GPS must include not only the Government’s expectations in relation to Māori interests and the way that the housing and urban development system will respond to those interests but actually how we will partner with Māori organisations.

Right across the housing spectrum, if you look at the way that Te Puea Marae has been at the forefront of some of the community responses to homelessness; if you look at He Korowai Trust and the work of Ricky Houghton in the Far North—very entrepreneurial and innovative approaches to addressing the housing needs of some of our most vulnerable people. There are a number of Māori organisations who are delivering the Housing First programme, and I’m thinking in particular in Auckland of the Ngāti Whātua affiliated organisation, and Kāhui Tū Kaha, and also in the building of papakāinga and other forms of affordable housing. We see Ngā Pōtiki in the Bay of Plenty, and I think all without exception of the larger iwi groups from Ngāi Tahu and Waikato-Tainui are involved in substantial housing land development and housing projects.

So Māori are absolutely part of the solution and are offering some of the most exciting and creative opportunities for Government and the private sector to partner with them. There are a number of Māori organisations who are delivering KiwiBuild developments, and the Unitec site in Auckland, at Mount Albert, is being developed by the Crown in partnership with the three rōpū who make up the Tāmaki iwi consortium. So that’s why that clause is there, and that I think signifies some of the most exciting opportunities that we’ve got.

I want to just answer the question Kieran McAnulty raised before, about the three years—why the three-year cycle for the GPS—and the reason is that it’s worked very well with the transport Government policy statement, and that is to have the Government policy statement synchronised with the parliamentary term so that, when a new Government comes in, it’s got the opportunity to refresh the Government policy statement, put its own stamp on it, bring all that kind of creative energy to bear on the policy making, and then set out its plan for the next three years.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’m just going to take another very quick call, first and foremost in relation—today is, actually, the anniversary of the first ever State house, built by the Labour Government in 1937. So I think it’s really wonderful that we’re talking about the Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities Bill today, and I have a very simple question to ask the Minister in the chair. As he knows, I am on the Environment Committee, and, at the moment, we are working through the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill. So I’m making reference to the purpose and content of the Government policy statement, which is clause 24(1)(f), and the Minister will see that we have inserted that additional component in there, which is, “how the Government expects Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities to recognise the need to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change.”

Now, the Minister has spoken about this before, and questions have been asked. But I would be particularly interested to know whether there is an intention around the Climate Change Commission to be consulted on this matter when the Government policy statement is being planned, or how the Minister would go about, essentially, looking at how climate change is built into the Government policy statement. In my own community of Tauranga, of course, we are living in a coastal area. We have communities that are ready to be built on which may, in fact, be in tsunami areas, or may be affected by salinisation, and the rise of the water table, and I’d be particularly interested to know from the Minister how that adaptation and mitigation will be worked in.

We are the Environment Committee, and so we did put this additional part into the bill, and it links, absolutely, with the multi-decade outlook. So it’s going to be, I guess, quite a difficult task to put, and ensure that that mitigation and adaptation is future-focused and looking forward, and putting it into the Government policy statement. So that’s the substance of my very short call, but if the Minister could—

Tim van de Molen: Sit down, then.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Oh, I might just stay standing up, just for that then—ha, ha! It’s not very often that I’m asked to sit down, and I actually listen. However, this—

Tim van de Molen: I believe that!

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Ha, ha! Good man; I’m pleased you believe that. However, so just to, finally, summarise: so if the Minister could address that particular component, and, I guess, as well, in terms of the one other question I have is around wellbeing. If the term “wellbeing”—which is being built until the Government policy statement—shifts and changes over time, how will the Government policy statement be adapted to build that in to our new and developing sense of what wellbeing might be? So thank you, Minister.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Economic Development): Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me just respond briefly to Angie Warren-Clark’s question about the climate change commitments that the Environment Committee helpfully inserted into the bill, and the member asked, really, how those obligations will be incorporated into the Government policy statement, and into the work of Kāinga Ora. So let me give some examples. So in relation to climate change mitigation, I think one of the most important ways is that Kāinga Ora, and all of its partners—local government, and all of the other institutions that are part of the housing and urban development system—first need to take into account changing land use patterns in response to the effects of climate change. So for instance, inundation, being exposed to rising water tables, and so, not building in places that are vulnerable to rising sea levels, whether it’s at the beach, or in areas where there is a lot of water inundation. That’s the first thing.

The second is that, obviously, one of the obligations will be to do everything we can to reduce carbon emissions, and it’s my expectation that we will, in working closely with the independent climate commission, end up with some kind of carbon budget for the built environment. Now, you can see in transport, which is responsible for about 20 percent of our emissions, some of the things that we can do to reduce emissions. So the electrification of the vehicle fleet, new sources of energy like hydrogen for heavy vehicles. All of those things are going to make a big difference. But in urban development there are some other things we can do. So reducing car dependency is one of the main things. So everything that we can do to build communities, for instance, with more urban intensification, where people are in walkable neighbourhoods, and have access to high-quality rapid transit, and other forms of public transport, walking, and cycling. That will go a long way towards reducing the carbon emissions that are a direct result of the shape of our towns and cities.

The third thing that is one of the main ways that an organisation like Kāinga Ora can make a difference is through the quality of the buildings, and our homes in New Zealand still—notwithstanding the advances that have been made over the last 20 years in insulation, and heating, and the whole move towards healthy homes, which we’ve reflected in the healthy homes guarantee that we legislated to make sure that all rental properties meet a certain standard, and that they are warm and dry. We still have a long way to go, and so, the use of better building materials, better design, actually, can make our homes more thermally efficient.

Actually, a really great example in recent times of where that’s been done is the Hobsonville Point development, developed by HLC, where they used Government procurement, procuring several thousand new homes, and building a brand new suburb; they set standards for thermal efficiency in all those homes.

Angie Warren-Clark: Brilliant.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yeah, so all of those new homes are the equivalent of Homestar 6 or more. There’s a requirement for greywater recycling. They’re all double glazed. They are highly thermally efficient, and that means not only are the people living in them happier and healthier, but those homes are cheaper to run and they reduce our carbon emissions. Now, when you play out those kinds of gains across thousands and thousands of new homes that are being built, that adds up to pretty significant reduction in emissions.

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

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2

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

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3

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

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 1

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

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2

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

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment presently.

Bills

Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2)

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Local Government Act 2002

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Members, we now turn to the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2). The question is that Part 1 stand part. I call the Hon—

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Nanaia.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): —Nanaia Mahuta.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: That’s OK. It’s 9 o’clock at night—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): It’s been a long day.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: —but I thought I should preface Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 323, that will be debated, and provide a bit of a synopsis of some of the changes that we can anticipate will be debated in the committee of the whole House stage.

The bill as amended by the Government SOP makes a number of improvements to the local government system, implementing the changes in the SOP, and will assist the Government in working constructively with local government to improve community wellbeing. This Government is progressing the bill to demonstrate its partnership approach to working with the local government sector. Reform will not be imposed centrally, but will be addressed in conversations with local government to ensure that both arms of government are working together to benefit local communities. In fact, when I gained this particular role, one of the strong messages from the Local Government New Zealand sector group was that they wanted to work more in partnership with central government on the key issues facing them.

The bill will provide an opportunity for the Government to set a clear signal of intent as to how it will support the local government sector to address the challenges which communities face. It will remove the threat of amalgamation from local authorities by restricting reorganisation requests to local authorities, the Minister, or those receiving community support, requiring a petition of at least 10 percent of local electors to proceed. It was most concerning that many of the amalgamation questions that the Local Government Commission (LGC) were addressing actually didn’t pass the test, and we’re going to improve that through this particular amendment.

In terms of council-controlled organisations (CCOs), the Government SOP removes the focus on enabling CCOs to provide core council services previously in the bill. Instead, new tools are provided to help councils govern CCOs and to provide better accountability and reporting mechanisms. CCOs are accountable to local communities through councils that control them, and we can do more to improve transparency and accountability. Powers for the Local Government Commission to create CCOs through the local government reorganisation process are removed.

In terms of Local Government Commission changes and the reorganisation process, the bill implements stage one of a reform programme for LGC and its role in the local government reorganisation process.

At this point, I just want to acknowledge the former chair the late Pita Paraone, who had a brief but important role in chairing the LGC.

There’s no foreseeable need for large-scale local government reorganisation such as amalgamations in the near future, and the changes that we’re putting through will, I think, give greater definition and more functional contributions of the LGC. Greater powers for the LGC and greater accountability to central government are removed. The LGC should not have a greater role in local authority reorganisations. Interim measures are introduced to constrain large-scale reorganisations, to alleviate the local government sector’s concerns about the threat of amalgamation—and I’m sure, tonight, they will be very pleased to hear that—and to provide breathing space while new arrangements are being developed.

The bill will require that the support of 10 percent of electors is needed for an investigation to commence in response to a request from the community. The LGC will have discretion to decline to investigate. This will ensure that only reorganisations that have significant community support will be investigated. It replaces the current settings that, effectively, require the LGC to investigate a reorganisation application made by an individual.

The bill enables a reduction in the number of commissioners below the current requirement of three. If the anticipated reduced workload enables a reduction, temporary commissioners will start to be able to be appointed, as and when required. If there is a single commissioner, the Minister of Local Government will make the appointment in consultation with both Local Government New Zealand and the Minister for Māori Development.

The power of the LGC to initiate an investigation is removed from the bill. Accountability to central government is removed, for example, through the annual work programme and annual reporting requirements. The Minister of Local Government’s power to direct the LGC work programme is removed, as is the ability to set detailed performance measures and expectations. The transfer of the LGC staff out of the Public Service is removed. Flexible reorganisation processes in locally led organisations were generally supported by the local government sector, and these are retained. The bill contains appropriate transitional arrangements for reorganisation investigations that are ongoing at the date of enactment.

In so far as CCOs are concerned, provisions promoting the use of multiply owned CCOs to deliver core council services are removed. The detailed funding and financing arrangements for multiply owned and substantive CCOs are also removed. The bill improves accountability and transparency settings relating to CCOs. Planning and reporting mechanisms for CCOs will be enhanced.

The bill requires local authorities to publish CCOs’ statements of intent and annual reports on their websites. This is an important step forward in terms of transparency. These provisions are enhanced by extending the requirement to CCO half-yearly reports. Reports must be published within one month of their receipt. Local authorities have the power to defer the statutory time line for preparing and adopting a statement of intent for their CCOs by up to one month. This enables the local authority’s long-term plan to be prepared first and it informs statements of intent for the CCO.

Councils are also empowered to specify additional planning and reporting requirements for a CCO, including requirements to prepare asset management plans, long-term plans, and thematic plans such as climate change adaptation and mitigation plans; to report progress against any additional plans, as appropriate; and to report progress against its statement of intent quarterly rather than half-yearly. The bill also enables a local authority to set out a statement of expectations for a CCO, specifying how it should undertake its operations.

The provisions relating to CCO obligations to Māori are retained, and local authorities are encouraged to address the issue of CCO relationships with Māori. When appointing to a CCO board, a local authority must consider whether knowledge of tikanga Māori is relevant to the governance of that CCO.

Provisions relating to the shift for Watercare, the Auckland water CCO, from infrastructure growth charges to development contributions are withdrawn. The prohibition on infrastructure growth charges may have inhibited Auckland Council’s capacity to borrow and, consequently, to provide for future growth. These matters will be considered as part of future work on development contributions and targeted rates under the infrastructure funding and financing work stream of the Urban Growth Agenda.

There are some minor changes. The SOP removes provisions in the bill relating to non-financial performance measures. It also removes provisions which impose financial performance measures relating to financial prudence requirements. The current provisions for regulations to set parameters and benchmarks are retained. Clause 30A of Schedule 7 is amended so that ex officio members of a council joint committee are excluded from the quorum count. This helps to remove a small but important problem for the operation of joint committees.

That’s a brief prelude to the Part 1 component of the bill, but can I say that I’m grateful to the Local Government and Environment Committee for their consideration of the SOP and ensuring that a thorough assessment of the changes aligned to what we were hearing from the local government sector. That’s an important thing, because one of the things that this Government has done is assure many New Zealanders that we’re serious about engaging with local government and working with them to ensure that the legislation that governs them is fit for purpose and does address some of the sharpest challenges.

Can I say this: in terms of the CCO improvements, it is a step towards what we really want to achieve, which is greater accountability to the shareholder councils of how CCOs operate. Again, I know that the consideration of the select committee on these particular issues was done at a time when there was some anxiety around the water reform work that I was leading and how the sector was perceiving the potential use of multi-CCOs. We’re not in that space. We’re going to change up the conversation with local government. We’re going to ingest greater transparency in some of the core areas to which they delegate functions through CCOs, and we’re going to change up the conversation around the issues to do with how councils work together, which is why we’re improving some of the functionalities of the Local Government Commission.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2) in the committee stage. Can I begin, because we are talking about local government, just to acknowledge those candidates who are standing for local government in the elections. The election date will be 12 October, so I’d just like to acknowledge all of those who are standing. Hopefully, we’ll have an increased diversity within our councils.

There are two key points I want to pick up on, and I’ve got some questions for the Minister of Local Government. The first one is around the amalgamation, and the second one is around the council-controlled organisations (CCOs). In terms of the amalgamation aspect, obviously this bill and Supplementary Order Paper 323 remove the threat of amalgamation from local authorities by restricting reorganisation requests, requiring a petition of at least 10 percent of local electors in order to proceed. So it’s a fairly high bar. Basically, it means that somebody must have a petition with at least 10 percent of the local electors in order to trigger a discussion about amalgamation.

Now, my question there to the Minister relates to collaboration versus amalgamation, because the word “amalgamation” is, I think, to be fair, probably a little bit of a dirty word among councils. We had a discussion recently across the Waikato region where I think it was the CEO of the Waikato Chamber of Commerce, Chris Simpson, in the public domain, said “Look, let’s have a chat about amalgamation.”, and there was some quite strong backlash against that, with the councils quite strongly saying, “We do not want to amalgamate.” However, on the flip side, those same councils who strongly said they do not want to amalgamate have been collaborating very well on one particular project, and I’d like to highlight it and alert the House to that project—and the Minister knows about it. It’s the Hamilton to Auckland corridor work. We’ve got the Hamilton—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Can we focus on the bill? This isn’t a general business session; it’s a particular piece of legislation.

JAMIE STRANGE: Thank you, Madam Chair. So my question to the Minister relates to the fact that—how does she encourage collaboration without having amalgamation? The example with the Hamilton to Auckland corridor is where councils have collaborated, how do we foster that—so, how does the Minister plan to foster that—without forcing that aspect of amalgamation on them?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Fine, fine, but could you address the legislation. This is the committee stage, where we look at the detail of legislation and discuss that. So a general question to the Minister about what she intends to do, without actually relating to a piece of legislation, is a bit difficult for the Minister. I’m sure she can handle it, but, you know, stick to the topic.

JAMIE STRANGE: Thank you, Madam Chair. So the councils are collaborating together.

The second aspect is around the CCOs and around the transparency. The bill clearly makes CCOs more accountable to local communities through the councils that control them, and so how does the Minister intend to increase that transparency, and how does the bill increase that transparency in terms of the CCOs. With particular relation around infrastructure, because the Minister, in her opening speech, spoke about water, and the fact that for councils, the delivery of the three waters reforms is a key aspect. Many of the councils are interested in CCOs, but how do the CCOs work?

I’m also interested in the Minister’s comment around an Audit New Zealand report—which covers this—around the transparency. The Audit New Zealand report says “It is also important that the local authority carries out its statutory functions well, to provide the foundations for an effective relationship. In particular, the local authority needs to: be clear about the purpose of its CCOs; appoint the right people to govern each CCO; and meet the requirements for monitoring and accountability.”—so, linked to that aspect of transparency and how it largely depends on an effective relationship between the CCO and the local authority and how that relationship plays out in general practice.

So the aspect of amalgamation—how councils collaborate without amalgamating—and, secondly, the transparency aspect in terms of CCOs, and particularly around the three waters reforms, which the Minister alluded to, because that is a topic that is certainly front of mind for our councils. Thank you, Madam Chair.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It’s my pleasure to take a brief call on this. Can I acknowledge you, Madam Chair, and the Minister in the chair, Nanaia Mahuta, for her work on this bill and Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 323, because both of you have been involved previously and now. I do want to start off by saying that we support the bill, obviously, but we do have some concerns about the SOP, which I’m going to outline briefly.

I think it’s widely accepted in New Zealand that most people are resistant to large-scale reorganisations—and the Minister clearly articulated that—and I think that’s probably where most people in this House would be as well. Although I do question where, in fact, the Minister is trying to go with the SOP, because on one hand she is, rightly, reducing the role of the Local Government Commission (LGC) but still leaving it there with one member, minimum—and there can be more; I accept that—but also taking away what I would call the proactive role of the LGC and then offering an alternative model of engagement in sort of another part which we don’t know.

The issue I struggle with in that scenario is this: unless there is a proactive body that is an agent of the Government, then there is no effective way of recommending, supporting, and looking at change objectively, apart from through the lens of the Minister’s eyes. As somebody who has been involved in some change processes—the one that didn’t go too well in Hawke’s Bay, although I still believe it was right—I do want to acknowledge that there is a role for an independent organisation to prod around some of these things.

Minister, the problem I have with your SOP is that you are referring to only stage one, and we know very little about what follows next. I understand you’ve been having conversations with the sector, and I understand they would be nervous, because, Minister, with respect, the three waters reforms that you’re looking at could have a very profound impact on the role of local government, what it does, and, effectively, the scale of its operations. So if we are to change how we deliver water, or the three waters, and if we are to do it more collaboratively—and I acknowledge, as the previous speaker, Jamie Strange, has just said, that there are some councils in New Zealand that are working quite collaboratively. But in my experience, when you get down to the nuts and bolts and the real hard stuff that involves a lot of money or assets, it gets really, really difficult. I can’t see yet, Minister, in what you’ve announced, how you’re going to achieve that, and I worry that by taking away some of the proactive roles of the Local Government Commission, there is no other driving force for any substantive change. Now, the Minister may have some in her thinking that we’re not aware of.

I do not accept for a moment that council-controlled organisations are a bad thing, either. In many cases, they deliver a very good service, and in many cases they are quite accountable. They are not councils, though. They are, effectively, more corporate-type organisations running the business of a council, and they have a different role. They are deliberately like that to bring a more business-type focus to running the business of council.

In my view, with what has been outlined here in this Supplementary Order Paper, you might as well do away with the Local Government Commission in totality, and you might as well set up a separate agency to deal with electoral boundaries and ward representation every three years, because as I look through this, I can’t see a legitimate role for the Local Government Commission. One person, maybe a few more—I’m saying, why bother? We don’t want to be disruptive in this piece of legislation, because we support the main body, but we are concerned that the Supplementary Order Paper drives away an agent of the Crown to, effectively, intervene and to suggest some change. Without that, we cannot see—apart from direct ministerial intervention from time to time, or instruction—how the Government can ask things to be considered differently. Thank you, Madam Chair.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity of speaking at the committee stage on this bill. Look, it’s really good to see engagement from across the House on key issues, and it’s also encouraging to see general support from members opposite on this bill. It is in particular that I would like to look at some of the changes proposed around council-controlled organisations, or CCOs, and to look at some of those areas and ask a couple of questions to the Minister in the chair, Nanaia Mahuta, in this space.

The provisions within Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 323 aim to improve responsiveness to local authority direction. They also aim to improve transparency in this area and, in addition to that, to enable iwi and Māori to have greater input into how CCOs are being run—better public responsiveness and responsiveness to Māori. This is achieved in a number of ways in the bill.

I’d just to use a particular example from the Hutt Valley, where I reside. We have a CCO that’s been operating there for a good while, and it has really concerned me in terms of how it has been operating and how it has been transparent. So I’m interested to know from the Minister in particular whether these changes will mean that a CCO will have to operate with those wellbeings in mind—the new four wellbeings that we’ve applied to how local government will be operating. So the example that I’d like to use to illustrate this point is a CCO by the name of Urban Plus that operates providing cheaper housing in the Hutt Valley. What they do is they own a number of properties—particularly for people over 65—and they are rented out at 90 percent of the market rate. But what’s been happening lately is that they’ve pretty much got into the role of property development, where land is being purchased, built upon, and sold at market rate, and a profit has been made and then pocketed, which is what happens.

But what I would’ve always liked to have seen is, at a time when there is such desperate need of increased housing opportunities in the Hutt Valley, Urban Plus taking a far more hands-on role in terms of assisting to deliver more affordable homes for families across the Hutt Valley. So I’ve always been interested to know how we could have greater transparency and a greater responsiveness to the needs of the community for an entity that is under the general ambit of our council. I look forward to understanding a little bit more how this would impact upon my own area.

Some of the SOP’s key changes to CCOs, I note, are that the Local Government Commission will not be able to transfer council services to CCOs. In addition to that, there are proposals to create an elaborate system of council-controlled organisations to deliver water, transport, and other services. That’s withdrawn as well by the Supplementary Order Paper. There are also provisions added to enhance the transparency and accountability of council-controlled organisations to councils and communities. As someone who has attended an annual general meeting of a CCO, I think the whole meeting was conducted in about 2½ minutes flat. So I would like to also know what types of public accountability—how people in the community can find out about what the business of CCOs is and how they can be involved in understanding what that work is and how it benefits the wider community, if at all.

So I’m really encouraged to see a Supplementary Order Paper that looks at taking an area where I think additional benefits could be seen by the community, and I’m very interested in finding out a little bit more in terms of how those things in particular can work to operate, alleviating big, long-term issues such as those of housing in the Hutt Valley that we see. So, thank you, Madam Chair.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): It gives me pleasure to speak. I’d just like to compliment the previous speaker from across the floor, Lawrence Yule, who I know was personally involved. He spoke of local government amalgamation—or attempted—and, having watched very keenly during attempts to amalgamate in the Hawke’s Bay, I think it was a learning experience for many other organisations or many other local bodies around the country.

But I’d like to particularly go to proposed new section 24AA in clause 8, which is around the purpose of local government reorganisation provisions: “The purpose of the local government organisation provisions of this Act is to promote good local government by enabling and facilitating improvements to local governance.” Well, what a lofty ideal, and anything that starts any piece of legislation should have a core principle, a first principle, similar to that, that we should be aligning and templating against any other decisions that are made.

After that, of course, it comes to proposed new section 24 itself, in clause 9, which really discusses the scope of local government reorganisation, and it goes through there: “Local the reorganisation may provide for 1 or more of the following matters:”. I think, if you go through those matters, going through to paragraphs (g) and (n), from the union of districts and regions—now, I think I’m very fortunate to be the member of Parliament for Ōhāriu, which only has one territorial local authority, one council, and one mayor for that whole area—

Kieran McAnulty: One good MP.

GREG O’CONNOR: —and—thank you—as Mr McAnulty very kindly pointed out, one fine MP. So I thank you for that, Mr McAnulty. But “the constitution of a new district or region, including the constitution of a new local authority”—these are all things that have to be taken into account. It is good that they are laid out there, because I think we all know that in New Zealand, from the time it was settled, communication wasn’t what it was, transport wasn’t what it was, and very small communities, communities now that we look at and we think “Was that really an organisation that had its own CEO—had its own council?”

They were very small, and we don’t have to go far from here. Look at Pētone. It was a place at the bottom of the Hutt Valley, and not only did it have its own council but it had its own traffic force, as did many of these local councils, because they were actually a very good source of revenue. Now, looking historically back at it, it’s very important when we’re looking at clauses like section 24 that as we go through these provisions, we have some context for them. As I read through, this is one of the contexts I think is a good one to compare as we go through, as to why you would ever have thought that the local body—you go through an area that, literally, you can drive through now in five minutes as one heads up the valley. In less than five minutes, you’re through that area that did have to take into account all these things: its own water, its own sewerage, and not at some small expense—all those things.

So now, as we look at all those small councils long forgotten, I’d hope that in archives somewhere, people can go back and look at some fine people that worked very hard to keep them. But logic said that they should at some stage move into a much bigger body, and this is where we’re going back to section 24. We go through paragraph (c): “the abolition of a district, including the dissolution or abolition of the local authority for that district or region:”. I think I’m reminded of the phrase “turkeys voting for Christmas”, because often when these things have had to be done and we’ve had to abolish local bodies, it has meant that those who have actually put them through have gone without a job. Someone’s had to step back and leave the running of their area to a much bigger organisation.

That is something we can look at in Auckland, to see the provision up there of the single authority produced in Auckland. I know there is still some debate about whether that has worked, and I’m sure it’s a debate that will go on until perhaps Auckland may become even bigger than it is now. I would not imagine that I will ever see the day when it would actually become smaller and narrower—as I see you are requesting that I do in relation to this speech, Madam Chair.

So I will actually continue down the alphabet until I get to paragraph (g), which is: “the performance and exercise by a local [body] of both—(i) the responsibilities, duties, and powers of a regional council in respect of a region;”—and, of course, again, the roles of the region and moving towards whether we’d ever have a unitary authority. Isn’t that a word that is entering our lexicon now—“unitary authority”?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I just want to take a brief moment to respond to some of the questions, and in no particular order.

There was some conversation around the role of the Local Government Commission (LGC). Can I just reiterate, in my opening remarks and in response to the member across the Chamber, that the changes in relation to the Local Government Commission represent the first part of reforming the independent role and function of the Local Government Commission, and were more attuned to what, in the current environment, the independent nature of the LGC could look like. But it was still important to retain some key functions—for example, ensuring locally led reorganisations—to ensure that the LGC was able to focus on representation reviews and boundary changes, and the establishment of local boards and community supported reorganisations as per the changes in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 323. So, while I hear the concerns of the member, now is not the appropriate time to set out what stage two will look like in terms of the functions of the LGC.

But can I say this: it is important that there is a body that has a level of independence that can undertake some roles and functions that could improve and give confidence to the sector in a number of areas, some of which are already well-known and are kept; some, in terms of greater transparency, governance, and capability, that we are still yet to think through. So I don’t want to leave the impression that the whole focus of the LGC is starting to be eroded or minimised—that is not the case. What we are ensuring is that stage one of retaining the current functions and, I guess, raising the threshold to initiate amalgamations or reorganisations is something that actually works for the community.

The other thing that I wanted to comment on is in relation to council-controlled organisations (CCOs), and commercial CCOs in particular. If we look at some of the challenges within Auckland and the transparency and accountability of those CCOs, we need to continue to ensure that the provisions around CCOs can give greater line of sight to the shareholder—to the council—about what they undertake on behalf of the council area. Many members across this House will have heard a number of concerns from the community about how commercial CCOs lack the level of transparency and accountability for the functions that they undertake, and I think we can do better in that space.

So I wanted to signal that as an important point to note, because, again, the SOP seeks to change a bill that we inherited. The changes that we will continue to go down will ensure, again, fundamentally, greater transparency and accountability for the role and function of CCOs, and that there is an independent role for LGC—this is stage one of that change process.

I’ll come to the question that was raised in relation to how we foster collaboration if amalgamation is not the preferred approach of this Government. Actually, in the space of water reform, that is a fertile area within which we will see local government leadership about how they discuss their arrangements for improved service delivery, and we’re encouraging that. But the more, again, that we can encourage local government to come up with the solutions themselves, rather than central government pushing a particular approach, I think we continue to gain trust that we are working with the sector, and that’s a partnership that the Prime Minister has been leading.

Without detracting too far from the legislation in terms of the points that were raised by my colleague Greg O’Connor in relation to proposed section 24 in clause 9—very well pointed out, may I say—and it only amplifies the points that I’ve been highlighting around the scope of local government reorganisation and the roles and functions there.

I think that there are real opportunities to extend this conversation in the space of the transparency of CCOs.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to speak to Part 1 of the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2) and, in particular, to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 323 introduced by the Minister, a not in-substantive Supplementary Order Paper which makes some reasonably fundamental changes to a bill that was introduced by the National Party when they were in Government.

I have to say I’m surprised at the lack of participation in the debate this evening from the National Party, because this was their answer to the infrastructure deficit that does exist—that does exist. [Interruption] Oh, they’re getting noisy now. Take a call, lads. Take a call if you want to participate in the debate. But this was their answer to the infrastructure deficit in local government, and we do know many councils suffered from years—decades, in some cases—of a lack of investment in fundamental infrastructure such as water services, transport, and roads.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The Minister is getting to the bill, isn’t he?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The Minister is going to get closer to the bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Part 1.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: At the core of this were council-controlled organisations (CCOs). Madam Chair will recognise CCOs, multiply owned CCOs—CCOs that cover multiple councils. This was the answer that was presented by the National Party when they were in Government. That was a central part of Part 1 of this bill, which has been changed by the Supplementary Order Paper introduced by the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, to remove the definition of multiply owned CCOs and to remove that concept from the legislation.

I know that many submitters came to select committee and expressed their concerns not only about the lack of transparency, the extra layer, and the distance between the voters and their democratic right to control the assets owned by their council on their behalf by CCOs but the concern that the creation of these multiply owned CCOs that would control infrastructure across a number of councils could create an incentive for a Government that was so minded to embark on a privatisation regime creating a significant asset that was at arm’s length from the council—already partially corporatised, it’s not a big step then to take the next step to privatisation. That was a significant concern of many submitters, and that is, I believe—and I would appreciate some clarification from the Minister if this is the case—part of the motivation for removing those multiply owned CCOs from this legislation.

But also on this side of the House we do not necessarily believe that the corporate mentality, the corporate approach, is the right approach or is a better approach for controlling what are, essentially, monopoly assets. You’re not going to get competition in water services, whether it be the provision of drinking water or the treatment of waste water. This is not a business proposition. This is not something where you’re going to have multiple actors competing against each other to provide the best service to the public. This is, by its very nature, a monopoly service, and, by and large, on this side of the House we believe that the services that have monopolistic characteristics like that are best provided by the State or by some other public entity—in this case, the local council—because that gives local control over local assets and provides democracy and transparency, whereas what you get when you have private control of monopolistic assets is often price gouging, because there is no competition. There is no one else to create an incentive to drive down prices or to make sure that they are run in the most efficient way, and what ends up happening is the private owners take the opportunity to generate as much income and often—I heard someone on this side saying—asset stripping. That occurs as well.

So the claim from the one member opposite who has deigned to participate in this debate so far that taking a corporate approach results in more efficient, more effective delivery of public services—[Bell rung] Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call the Hon Lees-Galloway—Iain Lees-Galloway.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yeah, “Lees-Galloway”—to my friends. It is, I think, demonstrably wrong and we have multiple examples of this happening not just in New Zealand but around the world as well. “Private” and “corporate” do not automatically mean better, and in this case, when you’re delivering public services, monopolistic services, that are a fundamental piece of infrastructure required by everybody living in a community, on this side of the House we believe they are best delivered by public entities and with public control—not the arm’s length, council-controlled organisation, but actually owned by the council under public control.

I notice that one of the provisions which have been changed by the Supplementary Order Paper is to remove the requirement to align the objectives of a CCO with the priorities of central government. So not only was there a privatisation agenda behind some of these changes but very much an agenda of central government takeover of locally owned assets, and this is a great concern to many councils—that they fall under central government. There are often regulations and laws passed by us in central government and they are expected to deliver on them, but they certainly are concerned about central government agendas impacting on their ability to deliver local services.

So, again, I’m very pleased to see that the Minister has introduced the SOP that also does that. It’s absolutely securing the role of local councils as the owners, the operators, and the controllers of that local infrastructure.

I don’t think my voice will last a heck of a lot longer, so I will just finish by saying that I support the SOP introduced by the Minister. I have to say, given that this was the Opposition’s great answer to these issues when they were in Government, I am surprised that we haven’t heard a more vehement defence of their position in this debate. Clearly, they’ve realised that this side of the House is right and they were wrong all along.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Civil Defence): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Thank you very much for this opportunity to contribute to the robust debate on this bill as it proceeds through the house.

I have a couple of questions that I’ll lay out throughout my contribution. The first one, if I can—and I know this is something in particular that the Minister is certainly well versed in, if you like. But I’m curious, when we look at the bill being proposed, when you look where it says “After section 17(4), insert: (4A)”, and then it goes down a long list after it says, “In assessing the benefits and negative impacts of a proposed transfer under subsection (4), a local authority must have regard to the following matters:”. I know the Minister touched on it briefly in her first contribution, and I want to go all the way down to paragraph (e), because in that particular part it says, “existing communities of interest, and the extent to which the proposed transfer will maintain linkages between communities (including iwi and hapū) and sites and resources of significance to them.”

Now, for those who have even a short time of experience in this House, one will know that whenever we start looking at those kinds of interests of hapū and iwi and how we might protect them into the future, one can’t help but ask the questions about are we doing enough to make sure that their particular interests are being considered. I know it’s a rather big part there, but when we consider the way iwi and hapū consider resources of significance to them, I’m curious as to whether or not—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Sorry to interrupt the member, but we’re just having difficulty finding the clause that you’re referring to—just to help the Minister?

Hon PEENI HENARE: I’m reading here, in clause 7, “After section 17(4), insert: (4A)”, and then it goes all the way down a very long list. Like I say, the Minister mentioned it briefly at the beginning, and I always like to take the opportunity in this part to ask a question, a couple of simple questions, because I think they’re relevant. One, as tribes have settled across the country, I, in my short time in the House here, have noticed strong parts of legislation that allow them to be actively involved in local government. I think those are important, because much of that actually relates to the way resources are looked after and the way sites of significance and other things are managed. The other part to that which I think is fringe but relevant is actually the way hapū and iwi consider other communities who partake in those resources, who live within those boundaries. It’s those kinds of questions that I always like to ask when we look at including clear words—like in this particular instance, where it says “(including iwi and hapū) and sites and resources of significance to them.”

Another part of that is the same question I ask in other times when I see this, where it does talk about tikanga and history and what it means to them. But, like I’ve already mentioned, the Minister has already made it clear that in her work on this particular part—if she can, perhaps, explain it a little bit more, because it does cover some of it in there, but it just makes it a very clear part in the one that I’m talking to because earlier, you’ll see, Madam Chair, that in proposed section 17(3A) it does talk about those Treaty of Waitangi claims. But as that process evolves, I’m wondering if there are any implications on that.

Before I take my seat, the only other one that I wanted and hoped that the Minister could provide a little explanation on was that it says, in clause 5(2), “In section 6(1), insert in their appropriate alphabetical order:” and it goes through, and it flips over to page 12, and it includes in there “or Greater Wellington Rail Limited”. As an Aucklander, I’m always curious why in there it says here it does not include the “Auckland Transport”—and OK, that’s fine. I’m just curious as to why it says “or Greater Wellington Rail Limited”. That’s perhaps what a Māori would term kūare, but I’m hoping that the Minister will at least indulge me in helping me understand why that particular part is in there when I consider also that the original bill has “Auckland Transport” as well.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call—oh, gosh, it’s one of those nights.

Clayton Mitchell: Clayton Mitchell.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call Clayton Mitchell.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): That’s all right. I forget my own name sometimes—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): It must be getting awfully late.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: —it’s totally acceptable. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I rise to take a call on this very important bill. It’s actually this very subject that got me into politics at the start, because the role that local government plays in our everyday lives, arguably, probably plays in some people’s lives more of a role than what central government does because they have so much to say about the things that happen directly in our communities. I think over the years we’ve seen some departure from some of those responsibilities that have been bestowed on to local councils, territorial authorities, and regional councils, and this bill acts to tidy up some of those anomalies.

I just would like to say that, I guess, it’s been quite refreshing hearing the support from the other side, although the other side hasn’t supported Supplementary Order Paper 323.

Kieran McAnulty: Not much.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: But the best support you can hear is when they’re actually not saying too much, Mr McAnulty. So I’ve actually enjoyed that silence because silence is golden, and there’s a lot of smart words in nothing when it’s not being said.

I’d just like to raise a point about the council-controlled organisations, and this is the part that I think steps out as being quite a pivotal move. What we want to see is openness and transparency and the autonomy for a council to operate, but in an open and transparent way. I think on many occasions we have seen councils opt for a council-controlled organisation set up to obfuscate—is my word—their responsibility to manage and administer what are core functions of a council. When you look at local roads and the connector roads in your cities and regions, when you look at swimming pools and parks, when you look at halls, and when you look at the waterways and the three waters—the waste water, the sewage, and your drinking water—and you have situations where councils set up an organisation that is put behind a firewall and that is funded by ratepayers but without being able to have that openness and transparency, it creates some concerns. This actually tidies that anomaly up.

It also constrains and puts a tightening up around the fiasco which was the amalgamation of the super-city in Auckland, and we saw the problems that that has caused. This bill here, in this Part 1, takes away the ease in which a council could look at amalgamating with other territorial authorities and other regional councils, etc., which I think doesn’t prevent it from happening, but it makes it quite difficult for that process to be undertaken. I think that’s quite an important part as well. We need to learn from the mistakes of our past.

But the key function, I think, of this bill really is around ensuring that those council-controlled organisations don’t get put into a box out of the reach of the eyes and minds of the ratepayers, and therefore I think that that’s to be commended in this bill overall. I did spend some time in local government. As I say, there are frustrations that seemed to build up in a community by not being listened to by their elected members, but more frustrating is when they have been elected to do a job and then that job has been passed on to a board of independent people, where the funding is put into an organisation that is then not able to be managed by the governing body that has been elected to do so, which is irresponsible.

Another aspect that I think is very good with this bill is it also creates some autonomy around the Local Government Commission—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to report progress.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Bill without amendment, the Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities Bill without amendment, and progress on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2).

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.