Thursday, 26 September 2019
Volume 741
Sitting date: 26 September 2019
THURSDAY, 26 SEPTEMBER 2019
THURSDAY, 26 SEPTEMBER 2019
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
Speaker’s Rulings
Oral Questions—Substantive Questions with Multiple Legs
Parliament TV—Use of Official Footage for Political Advertising
SPEAKER: Members, I have got two rulings to make. The first I will do very briefly, and it will be circulated in writing. It has to do with the number of legs in primary questions. I have been somewhat slack in my approach to policing this, and I intend to follow the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings in the future, and the written ruling that people will get will apply from the next sitting day.
The second ruling: members, I have received a letter from Kieran McAnulty raising with me as a matter of privilege the use by the Leader of the Opposition of official television coverage of the House for political advertising without the permission of the member shown and publishing a false and misleading account of proceedings, contrary to Part B of Appendix D of the Standing Orders. In his response to the complaint, the Leader of the Opposition has raised some valid points about the conditions for the use of official footage.
This matter was discussed at the last review of the Standing Orders, and while some parties wish to further reform the rules, others were not in favour. Because the Standing Orders Committee generally operates on the basis of consensus, the only change made was to remove the ban on using the footage for satire or ridicule. I think this matter should be considered again by the Standing Orders Committee in its current review, and I encourage the Leader of the Opposition to make a submission to the Standing Orders Committee.
I intend to retain the matter of the privilege until the committee determines whether the conditions for the use of the official footage should be further reformed. I still, however, need to deal with the subject of the complaint.
Mr McAnulty’s letter has highlighted the existence of a range of videos posted by different parties that use footage of members for political advertising. I would be very surprised if those members had given permission, as the rules clearly require. While there has been some discussion around what constitutes a political advertisement, it is clear to me that the videos that support one party or aim to reduce support for another party are the sorts of items covered by Appendix D of the Standing Orders. That view is further reinforced by the description of the video as an “attack ad” in the material Mr Bridges referred to me.
I encourage all parties to consider the videos that they may have posted online. Those using official Parliament TV footage that has been edited and featuring other members without their permission should be removed by 5 p.m. on Friday, 27 September.
In relation to the specific matter complained of, the Standing Orders are clear that breaches of the conditions for use of the official footage could result in the loss of access to that footage and may be treated as a contempt. As I have indicated, I intend to withhold judgment on the matter of privilege until after the Standing Orders Committee has considered the current rules. Until that time, the Hon Simon Bridges and his office are to refrain from editing official video footage of MPs and posting it. They may still link to the official footage, but I will view editing it as an intention to make an advertisement. I may then have to proceed more swiftly in considering the matter of privilege.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just looked up the relevant Standing Orders—406 and 407—when it comes to considering a matter of privilege. Standing Order 406(1) states that “If the Speaker considers that a matter involves a question of privilege, this is reported to the House at the first opportunity.” Standing Order 407 then makes it clear that that matter is automatically referred to the Privileges Committee. From your ruling, you have decided that the video footage concerned has been edited. That in itself is a contempt of the House. Standing Order 410(r) makes it clear that “publishing a false or misleading account of proceedings before the House or a committee:” is a contempt of the House, and you have indicated that you believe that the video footage is misleading. Appendix D makes it clear that the use of video footage from the House in a political advertisement is also a contempt of the House. Therefore, following the Standing Orders, having made that decision, you have satisfied the criteria of 406(1)—you have alerted the House’s attention to it. Therefore, the matter must stand referred to the Privileges Committee.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): It might be more useful to hear your view on the somewhat extraordinary position being put to you and the questioning of your judgment by the Leader of the House. Can I just say that your decision today is not one that can be taken lightly by anyone in this House. It would appear that what you are saying to members of this House is that we are more constrained in making comment about political statements that are made in this House than any outside media might be. That seems to be an incredible censorship of what should take place inside a transparent democracy. So while we are not going to challenge, obviously, from the floor of the House, the decision you have made today, I do want to make it very clear that we think your ruling is harsh and very destructive of open democracy in New Zealand.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): This matter was well-canvassed during the most recent review of the Standing Orders. During that review of the Standing Orders, the proposals were made to remove those restrictions on use of the footage of the House in their entirety. The removal of the prohibition on satire was removed. The removal of the prohibition on the use of footage from the House for political advertising was not supported by all parties, and one of the parties that firmly opposed that was the National Party, represented by the member who has just resumed his seat.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): That is quite correct, but the member over there assumes that he is the arbiter, as does the Speaker today, of what constitutes political advertising. The reality is the playing of a speech that anyone can read in Hansard any day of the week, in a way that can only be described as a satirical presentation, is not a political advertisement in our view. So it is a difference—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order!
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, is the member over there, who is the subject of that video—
SPEAKER: No, that wasn’t the member who interjected.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —and published herself as being proud of being part of this, really saying that this was a serious contribution to the debate in the House and not something that some people might find somewhat strange? What I think we’ve got here is a situation where you have said you will wait until there is consideration by the Standing Orders Committee before you come down with further decisions about the way in which this might progress—or possibly progress—to the Privileges Committee, but you’ve also acted as a judge by, effectively, denying the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to use footage in the way any other media outlet in this country is legally, and inside Standing Orders, able to do. Also, you have said that the Speaker can now determine what is content of an advertising nature on a political party’s website. That, I think, is a step well beyond the responsibilities of the office you hold.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I think there is an important point that the shadow Leader of the House has completely wrong in that statement. That is, if the media took video footage from the House and edited it and used it in a way that was misleading, that gave a misleading impression of what somebody had said, then they too would be in contempt of the House.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): There he goes again, acting as the judge in this case, which is not before the Privileges Committee—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Addressing me on this.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am. I’m looking at him, but I’m addressing you, sir. It would seem to me quite simple; the statements that are made in this House should be as public as possible. It is not appropriate to misrepresent—
Nicola Willis: That’s right. Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: Order! Who’s interjecting then? Nicola Willis; stand, withdraw and apologise.
Nicola Willis: I withdraw and apologise.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It’s not appropriate to misrepresent them. But the question is whose judgment decides what a representation is? That has always been a difficult point. There was no alteration of the content of the speech from the member concerned. There was no commentary over the top of the speech of the member concerned. Simply, a presentation of it, and the asking of a question. Not unreasonable.
SPEAKER: OK, right, I thank members for the contribution. I think, addressing the first point made by the Hon Chris Hipkins, I have not yet decided that a question of privilege has arisen. I think I’ve indicated that I would give it serious consideration, but I am deferring that in order for there to be a possible review of the decision that the House took to adopt the current Standing Orders, following the review that occurred in 2017. I’ll say to Mr Brownlee that he was one of the people who insisted the rules be different for political parties, and I accept that that is an unusual position, but because of the way that the Standing Orders Committee works, on the basis of a broad consensus, that is what the Standing Order says, and it is up to me, if you go nowhere else but to Standing Order 2, to be the person who has the responsibility for enforcing what it says.
What it actually says is that I can stop—I’m not sure how people thought that I could technically do it—but it does say that I can stop organisations actually getting the feed. You know, I’m not—as people know—a technology expert. I don’t know how you would actually do it, and I’m pretty sure that it was aimed at media organisations rather than political parties. But as I indicated, I’ve looked very carefully, both at the report of the Standing Orders Committee and at the slightly unusual set of Standing Orders on this matter that we have, and I am convinced that it is a matter that needs to be looked at, and things should be held in abeyance until then. The broadcasting through linking of any speech or any question; I’m not suggesting that people can’t do that. What I am saying is that they cannot edit them. At the point that they edit them there is a danger of them becoming an advertisement, and, until we’ve considered this matter, that’s not to continue.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It might then be helpful, Mr Speaker, if you were able to indicate what it is, or what are the bounds you consider for “editing”.
SPEAKER: Clearly, a link—you know, the member’s aware that each of the questions, and each of the speeches in the House can be individually linked, and if members want to do that, and the entirety of the link is available, then there is no problem with that. It is when it is shortened and things are taken out of it that I consider that an edit.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s to get a clarification. So if I, for example, give a speech in the House on a particular issue—it might be in a general debate, it might relate specifically to something in the electorate that I represent—am I breaching Standing Orders, under your direction today, if I only publicise the part of that speech that I want to publicise?
SPEAKER: No, if it’s the member’s own speech, there’s no problem.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Speaking further to that point of order. I think the reason it’s the member’s sole discretion is the Standing Orders are quite clear about that: that if you have the permission of the member concerned, then, of course, you can use that footage. Unless the member forbids himself to publish it, I don’t think there’s going to be an issue.
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Now, Mr Hipkins, that’s now actually not being helpful. Right, is there any further discussion on this point? There appears to be none.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Today, the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 15 October. In that week, legislation to be considered by the House will include the first reading of Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession, Dispute Resolution, and Related Matters) Amendment Bill, the committee stages of the Corrections Amendment Bill and the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill, and the third reading of the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2).
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Has the Leader of the House been asked to set aside time when the House resumes in two weeks’ time to pass a bill that would enable all remaining stages of the Rugby World Cup to go free to air in real time, as promised by the Deputy Prime Minister?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Of course, that bill currently sits on the Order Paper. It is a members’ order of the day and I think, when the members opposite stop filibustering another bill listed under the members’ order of the day, they might finally get to it.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for item No. 8 on the members’ order of the day, Broadcasting (Games of National Significance) Amendment Bill (No 2), to go to the top of the members’ day agenda for the next members’ day?
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There is.
Points of Order
Speaker’s Rulings—Use of Parliament TV Footage
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In light of the previous discussion and your new direction to the House with regards to the use of video from the House, if I were to, myself, put up a video of me asking the question—or putting the leave, I should say—for that bill to go to the top of the Order Paper so that the suggestions from the Deputy Prime Minister can be given life, do I need to have the Government’s permission to put their decline in that video?
SPEAKER: No, because it doesn’t show the Government, it shows me and the member. The member could ask me, but he doesn’t need to because we’re such good friends, I’m always happy for him to have me featuring in his videos—with a limit; with a limit.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1—Economic Development
1. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister for Economic Development: What reports has he seen on New Zealand’s attractiveness to the global screen industry?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Economic Development): Last week, I was happy to welcome Amazon’s announcement that the new Lord of the Rings series will be filmed in New Zealand. The executive producers said—and I quote—“As we searched for the location in which we could bring to life the primordial beauty of the Second Age of Middle-earth, we knew we needed to find somewhere majestic, with pristine coasts, forests, and mountains, that also is home to world-class sets, studios, and highly skilled and experienced craftspeople and other staff.” And that is exactly what New Zealand offers.
Dr Deborah Russell: What benefits is this expected to bring?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The series is expected to have a large cast and crew, with significant opportunities for New Zealanders. A production across multiple seasons, it will provide job security and career growth, particularly for Auckland-based crew. There are more than 16,000 workers in the screen industry now, generating $3.3 billion in revenue last year. This new investment will help the industry grow even more. And on top of that, I want to quote the International Visitors Survey, which showed that in the year ending June 2019, approximately 800,000 visitors to this country said that they were here for the purposes of visiting a film location. That’s up from 120,000 in June 2013. I fully expect that the Lord of the Rings TV series will grow that number even more.
Dr Deborah Russell: What other reports has he seen on New Zealand’s attractiveness to the global screen industry?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I’ve also seen news that Netflix will film its new series Cowboy Bebop in Auckland. This is projected to employ 400 locals, and is another shot in the arm for the Auckland screen production industry. Our Government is proud to support our local film industry as we move to an economy that is sustainable, inclusive, and productive.
Question No. 2—Internal Affairs
2. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Does she have confidence in the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Yes.
Hon Paula Bennett: Who was at the meeting she had yesterday in regard to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The meeting was led by the acting chair, Judge Coral Shaw, and the three other commissioners.
Hon Paula Bennett: Why did Paul Gibson not ask, back in May, about the type of convictions the paedophile had, when he knew that police had to know the paedophile’s whereabouts three days in advance?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: One of the reasons why I do have confidence in the commissioners is because in the meeting we had, we were able to outline the time line of events that up until that point I had only had reported via the media. It was useful to understand that the commissioners did not know about the paedophile until 22 August, and how they had responded after that time. It was a staff member who was informed in May. This staff member did not inform the commissioners. There is now an employment process around that staff member, so I will not say any more about that issue. Most importantly, however, they acknowledged that they need to reinstate the confidence of survivors, the public, and the Government. They acknowledged that mistakes have been made, and they spoke about what they would do to stop them happening again.
Hon Paula Bennett: Did Paul Gibson state that he did not know in May that one of the people at the meeting, supporting one of the survivors’ advocacy group—I forget what they’re called, sorry—had to have been notified to police when they were doing whereabouts?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: It was outlined to me by the commissioners at that time that a staff member had been requested to write a letter to the police around the individual involved and their need to get permission to travel out of a certain area. That staff member did not inform the commissioners, and it came to light through another staff member on 22 August, and when they found that out, they responded.
Hon Paula Bennett: Will the member of the survivor advocacy group, who is in a relationship with a convicted paedophile, stay on the group?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: That is not a question for me to answer. This is an independent royal commission of inquiry; those decisions are made by the independent royal commission of inquiry. I believe that Judge Coral Shaw gave a very good interview this morning. I would suggest the member ask Judge Coral Shaw.
Hon Paula Bennett: Did she ask Judge Coral Shaw that yesterday?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: No.
Hon Paula Bennett: Does she think people submitting to the royal commission can feel they are being taken seriously and given the respect they need, when one of the chosen advocates is in a relationship with a paedophile?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I think survivors are going to have to make that decision for themselves, and it’s interesting that I have received a lot of correspondence expressing support for the royal commission and making sure that the royal commission goes ahead. The commissioners provided me with—they have done, I think, around about just under 150 private interviews—statements, positive statements, from those who had participated in those interviews around their experience. I do want to make this comment, though: the woman that we are talking about has done nothing wrong—the woman who was part of the survivors’ advisory group herself has done nothing wrong. So when asking those sorts of questions, I think we need to be careful about deciding that we’re going to judge and take away the ability for this survivor to participate, because we’ve made a judgment about her relationships.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact that anyone knowing about the business of this commission would understand that many of the people appearing before that commission have themselves got a criminal record, and to deny the commission the hearing of their evidence would be to seriously limit the commission’s business?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: That is one of the complexities that the commissioners are struggling with and, again, many of the one-on-one interviews that have taken place so far have been inside our prisons, because some of the individuals who have suffered horribly both at the hands of the State and at the hands of religious institutions have gone on, through that trauma, to then commit crime. The Acting Prime Minister is quite correct—to stop them from having a voice would yet again deny them what they were denied in their childhood.
Hon Paula Bennett: Does she accept this is not about the people that are submitting and their history and past but actually about someone who is on the survivors’ advocacy group who has been chosen to represent them, who is in a relationship with a paedophile, and at risk of actually extending the trauma that those very people have already had?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Again, I suggest that she puts that to the royal commission. She’s asking my opinion about a person who has done nothing wrong, who has committed no crime, who is a survivor and on a survivor advisory panel, and she is asking what my opinion is about an independent royal commission of inquiry’s actions. I cannot give that to her.
Hon Paula Bennett: Will she ask the commissioners to ask that person to stand down from the advocacy group?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: No, that would be political interference in an independent royal commission of inquiry.
Question No. 3—Finance
3. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his statements, policies, and actions?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Yes, in the context they were given, made, and undertaken. Particularly, I stand by my statements, policies, and actions following the IMF and Moody’s reports in the past week, which highlighted New Zealand’s fiscal strength, solid growth, low unemployment, and affirmed the policy direction of this Government.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he stand by his statement, “Despite some who will take a half-glass empty approach, under this Government’s solid economic management we’re doing well”?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, and in respect of farmers in particular, there was a survey out from Rabobank in the last day and—unsurprisingly, given that farm exports are up, as interest rates are at their lowest level ever, trade access is improving under this Government, and many farms are paying debt—around 80 percent of farmers remain positive that the future remains as good as or better than the current positive experiences they already have.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he think per person annual growth of just 0.5 percent is doing well?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I’ve got good news for the member there as well. According to the OECD, when this Government took office, New Zealand was in the 34th position in the OECD in terms of GDP per capita growth. This now has improved to 32nd; an improvement which has been brought about by the good governance of the current administration.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think HSBC chief economist Paul Bloxham is taking a half glass—no, a glass, half glass—
SPEAKER: Glass half-empty.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: —glass half-empty approach when he said, “Economic management”—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! I shouldn’t have interjected, nor should anyone else, but I think there was a bit of an invitation.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: —when he said, “New Zealand was a rockstar economy … but since … things have slowed down … we are sort of thinking the rockstar term might have run its course. You seem to have lost your mojo.”?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the gladdest respect, listening to that question, it was absolutely, totally incoherent, and no Minister could answer the question.
SPEAKER: No, it’s all right. I think even the member would accept it was slightly muddled mid-question, but I think the acting Minister of Finance is capable of divining a question out of there and answering it.
Hon DAVID PARKER: I am, and indeed, I would say that the problem under the last Government was that the roadies weren’t getting a fair share of the ticket. Under this Government, we’ve got inclusive policies which are seeing wage growth for ordinary New Zealanders, who are better off as a consequence—
Dan Bidois: What’s a roadie?
Hon DAVID PARKER: —compared with under the last Government where everything went to the top 1 percent.
SPEAKER: Order! Someone should—Mr Bishop, can you just turn to your left and explain to the member what a roadie is.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does 0.5 percent growth enable us to invest in world-leading healthcare for New Zealanders?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, the ability of this Government to invest in world-leading healthcare is illustrated by the more than $1.5 billion extra being committed to the health sector to deal with mental health problems, addiction, and violence. I think that will be one of the lasting legacies of the Minister of Finance’s Budget, which shows how well the economy is being managed, that we can afford that generosity of contribution to mental health.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: So, given the historic high terms of trade, shouldn’t we be doing much better than 0.5 percent per person growth?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Export growth has been very strong in the last year, in no small part because the exchange rate has settled to a more realistic level, which is helping the real economy expand rather than the speculative economy, which was pumped up by the last Government in reliance upon house price inflation and high rates of migration.
Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just wanted to check who you wanted me to explain what the endangered species of a roadie is?
SPEAKER: The member on your left, and you don’t need to do it publicly. He interjected at least four times “What’s a roadie?”, and I thought that the member has some knowledge of these matters and could explain it to him. I will say to the member: I’ve been one.
Question No. 4—Trade and Export Growth
4. Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change) to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: How will the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability announced today use trade rules to tackle climate change and environmental issues?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): Tackling climate change is a long-term issue that this Government is committed to. This requires action at both home and abroad. I’m pleased to inform the House that we believe that trade rules and trade relationships can play a more substantive role in overcoming the climate challenge, and now’s the time to use them. The Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability will eliminate tariffs on environmental goods and make new commitments on environmental services. It will establish concrete commitments to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies and develop guidelines for eco-labouring programmes and mechanisms. We believe trade rules can be part of the solution by removing trade barriers to green products and services, and eliminating subsidies that incentivise the production and consumption of damaging fossil fuels.
Hon James Shaw: What difference will removing tariffs on environmental goods and services make to the accessibility and cost of things like renewables such as solar and wind technology?
Hon DAVID PARKER: It’ll change the relative economics of going clean. Transforming our economies to a low-carbon future requires innovation and access to low-carbon technologies. We know that trade and investment can help drive this. The elimination of tariffs on environmental goods and services provides more certainty for investments, and it will support the decarbonisation that we need to combat climate change.
Hon James Shaw: How will the provisions of the agreement be legally enforceable to ensure that countries are bound by their commitments to tackling environmental issues?
Hon DAVID PARKER: New Zealand, together with Norway, Iceland, Costa Rica, and Fiji, are proposing to use legally enforceable trade rules to turn these commitments into action. Our vision is an enforceable trade agreement which has treaty status. The exact legal structure is still to be determined, but I can say that the legal form will support an outcome that has real impact. At the moment, the multilateral rules in this respect are inadequate and they’re stuck, and we think that this will be a pathfinder agreement that will apply initially to those countries but will expand over time.
Hon James Shaw: Does the Minister intend to bring other countries into the agreement, including New Zealand’s major trading partners?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes. That is the outcome that we hope over time. By negotiating initially with a group of like-minded countries, we’ll be able to achieve a high-quality agreement that hasn’t been able to be achieved through the multilateral Word Trade Organization process. We will design this in a way which is open to newcomers. We call it open plurilateralism, and we hope that this pathfinder agreement will be adopted by a greater number of countries, including our major trading partners. It’s noticeable that, of course, the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement, which was started by the last Labour Government, which led to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, is an example of how these things can work out in practice.
Hon James Shaw: What actions has New Zealand taken to support international efforts to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies?
Hon DAVID PARKER: As part of this agreement, we propose to have legal commitments on the phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies. It is absolutely absurd that the relative economics of clean renewables suffer by comparison to the more than US$500 billion per annum that go into fossil fuel subsidies. If we can help eliminate those fossil fuel subsidies, then we will have a better climate outcome for the world.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Will the Government continue to pursue trade agreements with countries even if they do subsidise fossil fuels?
Hon DAVID PARKER: While our preference is to deal with countries that aren’t, unfortunately the countries of the world have not been able to agree in environmental agreements on enforceable mechanisms to reduce climate change emissions. They have ambitions stated, but there are no enforceability mechanisms. We want, through this agreement, to have an agreement with a growing suite of countries with enforceability mechanisms. We hope that that in time will grow to all countries in the world, but we’re not proposing to cease trading with countries who are not yet in the agreement.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Does that then mean that the Government will suspend negotiations with the US, the UK, the EU, the enhancement of the China agreement, and India, all on the basis that they are subsidisers of fossil fuels?
Hon DAVID PARKER: No, it doesn’t, and, in fact, I just said that it doesn’t, but what it does mean is that we will be working with like-minded countries to show the benefits of not having subsidies on fossil fuels.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Lip-service!
Hon DAVID PARKER: Lip-service, he says. Well, why did the former Prime Minister from the National Party also support the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies?
Question No. 5—Housing
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Hello. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: Hello. Welcome home.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I know you missed me.
5. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing: What risk descriptions, if any, have a risk rating of “High” in the most recent KiwiBuild strategic risk register, and how often is the risk register updated?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)) on behalf of the Minister of Housing: On behalf of the Minister, as was stated to the member yesterday, the risk register is reviewed annually, and the last review occurred in February of this year. Following the transfer of KiwiBuild functions to Kāinga Ora, there will be regular reviews of risks associated with KiwiBuild, which is standard practice for significant Government initiatives. It’s important to emphasise again to the member that the document referred to includes potential risks and a plan to mitigate them should they occur, not risks that have eventuated and are being actively managed. People manage risks, not pieces of paper. We do propose to detail those individual risk descriptors. Those descriptors are resourcing; health, safety, and wellbeing; stakeholder expectations; communications; quality of investment decisions; procurement; information; realisation of benefits; dependency on third parties; integrated commercial decision-making; sector workforce capability; and building system capability—again, all potential but not all actual risks.
Hon Judith Collins: Why has the KiwiBuild risk register not been updated since February, when Treasury’s Gateway review process states that the risk registers should be “regularly reviewed, updated and acted upon”?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: As I mentioned to the member before, it is an annual review that usually takes place. As I also mentioned—within a week, the functions of KiwiBuild will move to Kāinga Ora, and as that will become part of Kāinga Ora, there will be a new risk register.
Hon Judith Collins: So why has she said that the KiwiBuild risk register is an annual document that isn’t due to be updated until next February, when the State Services Commission has advised the agency should “ensure that risk management does not become a pro-forma, compliance exercise in the agency but rather an everyday, working tool to make the best possible steering decisions”?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I’m not sure if the Minister did say that, but the document is a living document and has had a regular review on an annual basis.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister saying that updating the risk register every day is a silly suggestion?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Thank you for the question. Potentially, but I would note to the member who asked the question and the member that asked the primary question that there seems to be a misunderstanding around what the risk register is, so if it’s helpful, I might use a hypothetical example. If a manager believed he or his actions might be challenged, he might use the risk register to assess the potential risk of that. Now, the likelihood could be high, but the impact could also be high; also, the likelihood could be low, but the impact high. In this scenario, it would be wise to use the register. Now, the risk might stay high and have little movement, but that does not mean that nothing is being done; it could just be that the risk of the manager—let’s call him Simon—of being challenged has not changed.
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Minister knows that the final part of that answer was out of order. He will withdraw and apologise.
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I withdraw and apologise.
Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would we be able to play that whole answer if we didn’t edit it?
SPEAKER: The answer is that the entire question, starting with Ms Collins’ primary, going right through to the end of her final supplementary, can be linked and played.
Hon Judith Collins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. So why did the Minister say that she wasn’t sure that she made the statement I referred to in my previous supplementary, when she said yesterday to the House in answer to a similar question, “Because the risk register has not been reviewed. It is an annual document that is due to be reviewed again by February 2020.”
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Because the Minister is right.
Hon Judith Collins: Which Minister is right: the one who said yesterday that it is an annual document not due to be reviewed until February 2020, or the Minister who today said that it is a living document?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: We’re both right.
Hon Judith Collins: If these are hypothetical risks as opposed to actual risks, then why has KiwiBuild committed to 52 further improvements as listed in its risk register?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Because, as I said to the member in her primary question, it is a mixture of potential and potentially actual risks.
Hon Judith Collins: What is the difference between an actual or a potential risk?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Well, if something actually happens, it happens. If something potentially doesn’t happen, it might not happen.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: What would the risk assessment be if a KiwiBuild house was built over the pipeline at Marsden Point?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I don’t believe that’s on the register.
Question No. 6—Transport
6. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Transport: What was discussed with Patrick Reynolds at his 25 July meeting with Hon Julie Anne Genter, and was the Associate Minister of Transport Hon Shane Jones invited to the meeting?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Given that we were having dinner, we discussed a range of food options and also some transport issues; and, no.
Chris Bishop: Did he and the Hon Julie Anne Genter discuss the board of the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) at his meeting with Mr Reynolds on 25 July at Ortega Fish Shack just seven weeks ago?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No.
Chris Bishop: On what date did the appointment process to refresh the board of the New Zealand Transport Agency commence?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: If the member wants to put that question down in writing, I’m happy to supply it, but it was some considerable time before the meeting in question.
Chris Bishop: Did he take a paper to Cabinet’s appointment and honours committee regarding the appointment of Mr Reynolds to the NZTA board; if so, when was that paper discussed?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes, I did, and I’d be happy to get the date for that member subsequent to this question.
Chris Bishop: Who paid for the meal at Ortega Fish Shack, and if it was him—
SPEAKER: Order! The member does not need to give the detail of or advertisements for particular restaurants.
Chris Bishop: Oh, well—
SPEAKER: It is unnecessary for the question.
Chris Bishop: Well, Mr Speaker, the—
SPEAKER: No. We’re not having an argument. The member will ask the question properly or he won’t ask it at all.
Chris Bishop: Who paid for the meal on 25 July; and if it was him, did he use his ministerial credit card?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I don’t have a ministerial credit card, and we all paid for ourselves. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order!
Chris Bishop: Has he seen the comments by Patrick Reynolds about “decolonising the transport system by giving people freedom from forced and crippling multi-car ownership for every household”, and was that discussed at his 25 July meeting with Mr Reynolds?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No, and no.
Question No. 7—Education
7. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What actions is the Government taking so that young people have the core skills and knowledge they need for when they leave school?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yesterday, I launched the first phase of the School Leavers’ Toolkit. The toolkit reflects our Government’s commitment to make sure that school-leavers have the skills and knowledge that they need to get on in life and avoid the common mistakes that can set them back early on. Students are able to access information on the student-facing toolkit website, which is a one-stop shop for the key resources that they’ll need, and we’ve also developed a site for the teachers so that they’ll have access to the tools they need to integrate the toolkit into their curriculum.
Jo Luxton: What skills does the School Leavers’ Toolkit provide?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The toolkit will support students to learn key workplace competencies, including financial literacy, how to maintain their personal wellbeing, and civics, both before they leave school and during their first steps into adult life. The student-facing website will enable young people to access information, including basic things like how to set up a bank account, learning about compound interest rates and debt, how to prepare their CV, how to prepare for a job interview, options for enrolling in future study and the support that’s available for that, their rights when they go flatting and their obligations when it comes to tenancy agreements, and, of course, things like civics education.
Jo Luxton: Who has been involved in developing the resources for the School Leavers’ Toolkit so that it meets the needs of the students?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Very importantly, we engaged with a wide range of students, who told us what they wanted to see in the toolkit, which is why we also added the information around personal wellbeing. To develop the resources, we’ve worked with the Bankers’ Association, the Commission for Financial Capability, WorkSafe, the New Zealand Electoral Commission, and the Drug Foundation. Students were able to road-test the information and provide feedback so that we could get the content right and make it useful for them. It provides all schools and kura with the resources aligned to the New Zealand Curriculum so that it supports teachers to include things like financial literacy and civics education into their classes.
Jo Luxton: What are the next steps for the School Leavers’ Toolkit?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The next steps are developing the resources further, particularly further resources in Te Reo Māori. And, of course, we’re taking further steps to ensure that drivers’ education is more widely available. As well as this, work is under way for students to be able to show on their records of learning some of the skills that might not be captured by their qualifications, so that future employers can see clearly what they have learned in these fundamental skill areas.
Question No. 8—ACC
8. Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to the Minister for ACC: Is he confident ACC levies will not increase in light of yesterday’s announcement of an $8.7 billion deficit at ACC?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for ACC): What I am confident of is that this Government will not be using an accounting deficit as an excuse to cut entitlements, overcharge working Kiwis and businesses, and generate large, unnecessary surpluses, which was the course of action taken by the Hon Nick Smith when he was a Minister in a National Party Government facing the same situation.
SPEAKER: Answer the question, please.
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: There’s no immediate need to lift levies. We will consider levies, as we normally do, next year and take into consideration all the relevant matters.
Hon Tim Macindoe: Has the Minister seen reports that when ACC reported deficits of just over half this year’s amount 10 years ago, levies for the average wage earner increased by $150, and does he believe that is a proxy for what will occur next year?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes, I have. And, of course, what we saw when Nick Smith generated those huge levy increases was that two years later, he was having to do a U-turn because he’d been dramatically overcharging everyday Kiwis and businesses and workers. I will not be using Nick Smith’s example. Nick Smith panicked; I won’t.
Hon Tim Macindoe: Does the Minister accept that, notwithstanding the drop in interest rates, a material contributor to the current deficit is the marked reduction in rehabilitation performance and claim exit rates?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Given that the deficit is $8.7 billion and the interest rates alone contributed over $10 billion of that, actually, ACC’s performance is astounding. They’ve generated $5.1 billion on their investments, they had a cash surplus of $570 million, and they invested a record $75 million in injury prevention programmes, which generate $1.81 of cost savings for every dollar invested. I have confidence in ACC. Unlike Nick Smith, no one on this side of the House is panicking.
Hon Tim Macindoe: Was the Minister even aware that entitlement claims have increased 19 percent and long-term weekly compensation claims have increased 12 percent on his watch?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes, and this is a function of a strong economy when more people are at work. And when more people are working, more people get injured at work and more people need compensation for loss of income, because they’re earning more at work. This is all a good thing, and it demonstrates that, under this Government’s watch, more people are working and they’re earning more.
Hon Tim Macindoe: So what does the Minister say to New Zealanders, who will rightly be worried about the prospect of increased ACC levies, due in large part to increases in serious injury and a drop in rehabilitation rates under this Government?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I can say don’t worry; no one in this Government is going to overreact—Nick Smith’s not in charge any more.
Question No. 9—Health
9. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she stand by all her statements, policies, and actions regarding vaccine supply for the measles outbreak, including her statement, “100,000 are going to be arriving presently”?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Health: Yes, in their full context.
Dr Shane Reti: On what date will the 100,000 additional measles vaccines she has spoken about arrive in New Zealand?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Pharmac and the Ministry of Health are currently working to confirm the delivery date of the 100,000 vaccines, which will be within a matter of weeks.
Dr Shane Reti: Can she commit, then, to all of the 100,000 measles vaccines she has spoken about arriving in New Zealand before the end of the year?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: As I said, they’re working to confirm the delivery date of the 100,000 vaccines, which is expected to be within a matter of weeks.
Dr Shane Reti: How many of the 52,000 measles vaccines she has spoken about are left, given reports 82,500 vaccines have been distributed so far in September?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The Director-General of Health has assured me there will be sufficient supply. I can’t give the member the exact answer to that question without—if he’d like to put it in writing, I’m very, very happy to get back to him.
Dr Shane Reti: When she says there is no shortage of vaccine supply, are some Auckland DHBs communicating that due to vaccine shortages, there will be no measles vaccines for adults until 2020?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Oh, if that has been communicated at all, that would be an error. The prioritisation group is, of course, children under five. It’s incredibly important that children and the most vulnerable are prioritised to receive their vaccine since they are the ones that are most at risk. The director-general has assured me there will be sufficient vaccine. We will be prioritising, though, those children who have not had an immunisation.
Question No. 10—Environment
10. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister for the Environment: What recent reports has he seen on the state of New Zealand’s waterways?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I’ve seen the latest Land, Air, Water Aotearoa—the LAWA—river quality trends results, which were published this week. It shows that there are more sites with degrading rather than improving trends for five out of the nine parameters tested. A major concern is that about twice as many sites are getting worse than are getting better on the Macroinvertebrate Community Index measure—that’s macroinvertebrates, those little critters that are normally the best measure of the health of a waterway. It’s also important to remember that the data only shows trends. Rivers that are in a degraded but stable state do not show up. The data unambiguously shows more work is needed to be done by all of us to protect our rivers. The problems are not fixed, and defenders of the status quo are wrong.
Dr Duncan Webb: What has the Government done to address the swimmability of our rivers?
Hon DAVID PARKER: The Government believes local rivers and lakes should be clean enough for our children to swim in in summer, to put their heads under without the risk of getting crook, and healthy enough for us to gather fish and kai. Under the proposals we released earlier this month, we’re lifting the bar on freshwater health at the places people swim or want to swim. Regional councils will be required to identify and monitor these sites. It won’t be sufficient just to put up a sign saying the water’s not suitable for swimming. The national policy statement will require the councils to target the activities that are causing the water to be unswimmable and to improve it to a level where the health risk is very low. Right now, regional councils monitor 292 sites for E. coli during summer. For the sites with sufficient data to assess quality, about half are below safe swimming levels some of the time. It’s not good enough, which is why we’re taking action.
Dr Duncan Webb: Do we also have a problem with wetlands declining in both quality and quantity?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Sadly, we do. New Zealand lost 90 percent of our wetlands long ago, when land was cleared for cities and farms, but, sadly, in recent years we’ve continued to lose them. Under our proposals for natural wetlands over 500 square metres, no further loss is permitted and any activities that contribute to the loss or degradation are deemed non-complying. Regional councils are also directed to identify wetlands to avoid their loss or degradation and to monitor their health and restorations. Filling in of streams is also going to be restricted. I think that this has actually had almost universal acclaim. I think New Zealanders are at the point where they want very strong protection for their remaining wetlands, in no small part because they know that they are an important habitat for whitebait.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister seen any other reports on attitudes towards the state of New Zealand wetlands?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, yes, I have. I mean, it’s obvious that there are some extraction activities—for example extracting kauri logs from wetlands—and this doesn’t help the state of wetlands. Neither does it help when people who are questioned about this say things like, “I don’t [care about] wetlands—they’re swamps … Go and find someone who actually cares about this, because I don’t.” That is a quote from the Hon Judith Collins, when in Government in 2014, about these important ecological areas. We have a different view on this side of the House, and we’re going to do our utmost to protect our remaining wetlands.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was looking for some intervention, because that was clearly a set-up question designed to attack a member of the Opposition. I know the Government’s under a bit of pressure, but they’ve spent a good part of question time—
SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: —simply attacking Opposition members.
SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat when I stand up. He didn’t. He will stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise.
SPEAKER: Right, and I’m not going to rule on his point of order, because he gave it away in the second half.
Question No. 11—Housing (Public Housing)
11. SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): Can he confirm the number of applicants waiting for a State house has doubled to over 12,000 since the 2017 election, and that the median time an applicant waits for a State house is around 125 days?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): As at 31 July 2019, the number of applicants on the housing register for public housing is 12,644, which is unacceptably high, as is the wait time the member has mentioned. This Government recognises the scale and urgency around the lack of public housing, which we have been left to fix. This Government is building public housing at the highest rate in the past two decades. It will take us some time to catch up after the neglect of the previous Government, but we are committed to ensuring we deliver safe, warm, stable accommodation to everyone who needs it.
Simon O’Connor: Can the Minister confirm that over 3,000 families are living in motels as emergency housing and that this is a significant increase since Labour became Government?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Yes. Again, that is an unacceptably high number, and we are working on making sure that people can get affordable, warm housing.
Simon O’Connor: What word would the Minister use to describe over 12,000 Kiwis waiting for a State house, particularly when he considers Labour MPs calling a waiting list of 5,000 a crisis?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I’ve already used a word, and that’s “unacceptable”. Back in 2013, a Massey University study found that there were 41,000 New Zealanders homeless, and that Government at that time did nothing about it. In fact, it demolished and sold off State homes. We have planned to build 6,400 homes—1,600 on average—and at this stage we are overshooting that mark, because we are committed to making sure that there are affordable homes available for all Kiwis who need it.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it a fact, Minister, that thousands of those families could’ve been housed right now had public housing not been sold by the previous Government?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: That is correct. If the previous Government had built public housing at the level at which we are building it now, there would be no waiting list. Instead, they demolished and sold off homes, and I’m quite happy to invite the member to some of the Housing New Zealand land sites which lay dormant under that Government but are getting houses built on them now.
Paul Eagle: How many public houses is the Government building per year?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I can confirm that the Government is building over 1,600 public houses each year, and that if the previous Government, again, built at that rate, there would be no waiting list at all.
Paul Eagle: What is the initial projection of public houses to be delivered in 2019-20?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Initial projections are that for 2019-20, we will deliver 2,628 additional public houses, which shows our commitment to ensure that everyone who needs a warm, safe, affordable home can get one.
Simon O’Connor: Does the Minister stand by statements of his officials in answers to written questions that most of the State houses currently built were started by the National Government?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Not necessarily, but I do stand by my statement that if the previous Government had built at the rate that we had, we would have no waiting lists at all. They’re quite happy to criticise for making the mess, but you made it and we are fixing it.
SPEAKER: Order! I didn’t.
Simon O’Connor: How is social housing going in this year of delivery, particularly in light of the Prime Minister’s statement that “There is no reason why there should be homelessness in a country like New Zealand.”?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: It’s going like 3,163 additional public housing spaces since this Government came to power.
Simon O’Connor: Does he consider it a success in the year of delivery that the Government has only delivered larger waiting lists for State houses, more people in motels, and higher—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! You’re only allowed two legs, all right? The member had three. The Minister only has to answer one.
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I consider it success that when we aim to build 1,600 homes per annum, we overshot that mark by 600 in the past year, and in terms of delivery, we were delivered a crisis and we are fixing it.
Question No. 12—Immigration
12. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Immigration: What announcements has he made today regarding the Recognised Seasonal Employer programme?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Thank you, Mr Speaker. More good news. Today, I announced that the Government will lift the cap on the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme by 1,550 to 14,400 in 2019-20, and a conditional increase of 1,600 to 16,000 in 2020-21. These are, respectively, the fourth- and third-largest cap increases in the history of the scheme. This is the second-earliest cap increase announcement, and the first to cover two years. These increases will allow our horticulture and viticulture industries to plan and build for the future.
Marja Lubeck: What are the benefits of the Recognised Seasonal Employer programme?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The RSE scheme is recognised as one of the world’s most successful circular migration schemes. It provides more than $50 million in economic contributions to our Pacific neighbours. It has also enabled our horticulture industry to go from strength to strength. New Zealand’s horticulture export revenue jumped by 13.7 percent to $6.1 billion in the year to 30 June 2019, and it’s expected to grow by another 3.8 percent to $6.3 billion in the current financial year.
Marja Lubeck: What challenges has the Minister set RSE employers?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Last year, I set out four challenges to the industry and employers to take a more cohesive and planned approach to growth, by paying workers more, employing more New Zealanders, building new accommodation for RSE workers, and taking responsibility for supply chains. The industry has made reasonable progress on these challenges, but I believe more can be done. This year’s cap increase will prioritise those employers who are building new accommodation for RSE workers, rather than adding to existing housing pressures. Next year’s cap increase is conditional on serious progress towards these challenges.
Stuart Smith: Supplementary.
SPEAKER: No, the member doesn’t have any supplementaries left. That concludes oral questions. I will say to Mr Lees-Galloway, as I have said to him once before, it would be very good if he took the recess to have some lozenges and to get rid of the germs which he has been spreading for most of the winter.
Bills
Resource Management Amendment Bill
First Reading
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I move, That the Resource Management Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider the bill.
The Resource Management Act (RMA) is, in the view of the Government, underperforming, and needs fixing. The resource management system, in general, is not performing as well as originally intended. Air quality is going pretty well, but other indicators are poor. Water and biodiversity indicators are in decline. Soil loss has increased. Urban development planning has not responded fast enough to the housing crisis. Over 25 years of amendments have made the situation worse, and the RMA is now nearly twice its original length. Using the RMA takes too long, costs too much, and hasn’t properly protected the environment.
The Government’s committed to addressing this. We’re, first, using existing tools to make improvements in the current system, including a new national direction for versatile soils, urban development, and fresh water. In July this year, we launched a comprehensive overhaul of the resource management system. This is being undertaken by a review panel led by retired Court of Appeal judge the Hon Tony Randerson QC, and we look forward to receiving reform recommendations from the panel in mid-2020. However, in the meantime, there are a number of targeted improvements to the current RMA that can’t wait, including reversing some of the objectionable changes made by the prior Government in 2017 that were widely criticised at the time.
Changes are also necessary to support the delivery of the Essential Freshwater action plan, which is currently out for consultation. The Government’s committed to improving New Zealand’s freshwater quality by stopping further degradation and loss, and reversing past damage. Key to achieving this will be a new National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management under the RMA. We’re consulting on its detail now, and its final form, which won’t be known for some months yet, will come into force in mid-2020, replacing the currently inadequate 2017 version.
However, we already know that the majority of councils will not be fully implementing even the 2017 national policy statement (NPS) until 2030 or later. That 13-year delay makes it clear that the standard RMA planning process is too slow to implement the new freshwater NPS. So to ensure that necessary plan changes are made by 2025, after which time the NPS will have prospective effect, the bill introduces a new specialised planning process for freshwater plans, broadly based upon the process that was used for the Auckland Unitary Plan. A central pool of expert freshwater hearing commissioners will be appointed. They’ll be specialists, and they’ll be chaired by a Chief Freshwater Commissioner, who’ll be a current or retired Environment Court judge. Hearing panels will be set up for each regional freshwater plan change, generally with five members, but with a minimum of three for some of the simpler or narrower plans. The panels will include regional council members or their nominees, and a tangata whenua nominee. Hearing panels will fully test proposed plans in light of submitters’ feedback, and recommend a plan with any revisions to the relevant council for adoption.
At the same time, the bill will repeal the 22-page collaborative planning process. This process, which was introduced in 2017, was widely criticised at the time as being overly prescriptive, and an unnecessary, complicated codification of what can, and does, voluntarily occur. No council has used the statutory process to date, and none is likely to. It is redundant, and it will be repealed, shortening the length of the RMA. As I said also, the bill will repeal some other objectionable changes made by the previous Government. Draconian regulation-making powers that enabled the Minister for the Environment to override council rules will be repealed. The presumption that subdivisions require a resource consent, unless they’re expressly permitted by a rule in a plan, will be reinstated. This will save district councils unnecessary costs in reviewing their plan provisions.
Preclusions on notifications, and appeals, in respect of subdivision applications, will restore appropriate opportunities for participation. This will enable existing businesses, such as quarries, airports, and horticulturalists, to participate on the basis of legitimate concerns about reverse sensitivity impacts that new subdivisions can have on their existing operations. It also removes a perverse incentive for developers to intentionally make their applications non-compliant, so as to preserve their appeal rights against unreasonable conditions that might be imposed by a council.
The ability of a submitter or an applicant to appeal matters outside the scope of the person’s original submission but which arose during the hearing will also be reinstated. The bill will reverse the current phase out of financial contributions which can be a useful tool to address development impacts. The phase out was based on an incorrect assertion of double charging with development contributions under the Local Government Act. This, in fact, is not permitted by law already. Meanwhile, the bill clarifies that financial contributions cannot be imposed on designations for State schools or defence facilities. For schools, this is consistent with a 100-year-old deal that central government funds a school but councils don’t charge levies on schools.
The bill also introduces a number of sensible amendments to existing processes. Applicants for non-notified consents will now be able to suspend their applications for up to 20 working days. Council will be able to stop the processing clock until outstanding consent application fees fixed in advance are paid. The current 20-day time limit to lodge retrospective consent applications for emergency works necessary during a state of emergency will be extended to 60 working days. That arises out of the experience that we’ve had following earthquakes and allows more time for emergency services to focus their efforts on immediate needs during these events and reduces the need for special legislation, as has occurred in recent years.
The bill makes explicit that conditions of multiple existing consents can be reviewed concurrently to allow councils to manage cumulative pressures on the environment; for example, at a catchment level. On compliance and enforcement, maximum infringement fees will be increased and the current six-month statutory limitation for taking prosecutions will be extended to 12 months. The Environmental Protection Authority will be provided with powers under the RMA to assist councils with the investigation of incidents and to take over the lead investigative role from councils if and when necessary.
The bill makes some minor changes to the operation of the Environment Court by enabling acting District Court judges, acting Māori Land Court judges, and retired Environment Court judges to be appointed as alternate Environment Court judges. Special advisers will be protected against legal proceedings regarding their advice, and the head of the Environment Court will be renamed to clarify the status of that position.
It has been suggested that the bill also address current provisions regarding urban tree projection and climate change mitigation. Both of these matters are complex. Auckland City Council previously used blanket rules that required resource consents to prune trees. This caused significant frustration and undermined the reputation of the RMA. There were also mixed views about whether climate change mitigation, or particularly how climate change mitigation, should be considered in RMA decisions. If we don’t consider this carefully, we could see ad hoc opposition to the likes of an individual petrol station, which could be problematic. These are important matters and they are fully within the wider, comprehensive RMA review that we’ve got under way.
This bill makes marked improvements to the RMA system in advance of more comprehensive changes that will follow the review panel’s recommendations next year. I believe it is a good start and I commend the bill to the House.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The National Party are not supporting the Resource Management Amendment Bill, and certainly not at this stage. We’d like to see if there are any improvements through the select committee process, but certainly it seems very obvious from the member who’s just resumed his seat, David Parker, from his speech, and certainly from the content of the bill, that it’s primarily about preventing housing getting built quickly, and it’s more about trying to stop things getting done that need to be done.
The bill largely reverses the changes made to the Resource Management Act (RMA) by the National Party’s Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017, which was all about reducing bureaucracy that gets in the way of creating jobs, building houses, good environmental management, and National’s legislation provided for a greater national consistency, more responsive planning, simplified consenting, and better aligning the RMA with other laws. There’s nothing in this bill that’s going to address housing affordability. In fact, it will make building houses more difficult. It’s very odd that the Government is introducing this bill, in relation to the freshwater proposals in it, when it’s apparently, as a Government, still consulting on freshwater proposals. It makes an entire mockery of the consultation process around fresh water, and it also overrides all of the consultation happening with local government about their obligations. It is, actually, a very arrogant piece of work from the Minister.
It’s also very interesting that it’s being introduced now, when there is yet another working group or—what are they called now?—expert panels, supposedly looking at and reviewing the entire RMA and how it fits in with other legislation. It seems remarkably remiss of the Government to be putting this bill forward when there is, apparently, this enormous amount of work going on.
It seems that the only thing that this Government can agree between the three parties of Government on the RMA is that they don’t like anything that National did. That seems to be the only thing that they can agree on, which is why—two years into the term and after all the talk and, obviously, the moment of coming to the right view by the Hon Phil Twyford that the RMA stops, at the moment, houses being built in a more efficient and effective manner, more cheaply and more affordably for people—they have now come to the conclusion that they need to do something on the RMA, but, very cynically, have left the major work to be reported on just before the next election. So there is no time at all to implement it and they don’t have to try and get agreement between the Greens, Labour, and New Zealand First. It is a cynical, cynical ploy, as is this bill.
Another issue around the fresh water and the intrusion of stock into waterways: farmers do not like having their stock go into waterways; they do not want to be part of that. We’ve had 98 percent of waterways fenced by dairy farmers that they have any access to. We have had a tremendous response over the years from farmers to keeping water free of stock manure. One of the things that is concerning here is there is a doubling in the fee of the fine to $2,000 dollars for any intrusion of stock into waterways. And that would be OK if it wasn’t just about farmers, because there is no doubling—no doubling at all—of the fine for people who throw rubbish into waterways. There is no doubling whatsoever of any fines for people who discharge waste from factories into waterways; there is no doubling at all. The only people being targeted by this anti-farmer Government are farmers—the only people; nobody else.
So Tamati Coffey over there—MP from the Labour Party—he laughs at that. Well, I actually don’t think that’s very funny. I don’t think it’s funny for people who throw rubbish into waterways to be treated to half the extent of a fine as a farmer whose stock might break down a fence, as they do occasionally, and end up in a waterway and causing problems, obviously. And that is something which I think is remiss. It is, in fact, something that could have been addressed.
Those of us who now live in the urban areas will know that our urban waterways are by far the worst in terms of cleanliness of any of our waterways. Certainly, always picking on farmers may be very easy for the photo op, but, actually, it’s really unfair.
We have farmers in this country, now, feeling that they are so subjected to judgment on the basis that they are farmers—and that judgment is so invariably unpleasant and negative. Those of us who grew up on dairy farms remember the time when farmers were respected in this country, and we now have a Government that has gone out of its way to make farmers feel that they are involved in an activity that is bad for New Zealand, despite the fact that they are, of course, the people who bring us in the export dollars that pay for the cancer drugs, that pay for the schools, that pay for just about everything that we import into this country. And I really am concerned that we now have very severe cases of depression and mental health issues in the farming community that are significantly worse than they ever used to be.
And when I hear young farmers—well, actually, many farmers now are young compared to me—saying to me, in their 30s, “Look, I’m just a dairy farmer.”, I feel so sad—so sad. And the people like that over there are the people who make that happen. The people who think it’s so funny—and they laugh at this. They laugh at it because they think it’s so funny that farmers, who live to do a brilliant job—no better farmers in the world than New Zealand farmers—are brought to suicide and to mental health issues, and that party over there laughs. I despise those people for what they do.
And Mr Peters—what a nonsense—tells them he’s the farmer’s friend. He supports this bill, happy for them to be fined double than the urban dwellers—happy for that—happy for them to be able to do that; never lets an opportunity go by to go and do them over, just to stay in power.
I have to say that this is another hit job on the developers who are building the houses—that actually build the houses, unlike the KiwiBuild nonsense that we’ve had from this Government—it’s another hit job on farmers, and it’s another hit job on the economy. If the Resource Management Act needs reforming, as we know it does, and so do the other side, then why don’t they wait for their working group to come back? The answer is that they can’t find anything to agree on, except they want to all disagree on whatever Nick Smith did or the National Party did, because they are driven by a vendetta, because they hate the fact that National was and is the party not only of business and Government but, actually, for the whole of New Zealand—people who care about New Zealand and who are happy to do what we can to help this country thrive.
This bill does not help this country to thrive. This bill does not help to get houses built faster. This bill will be yet another brake on houses being built. It’s all very well to think “Let’s all attack the farmers.”, but, actually, they’re the people who pay the bills for this country. And the moment we forget that, we might as well just pack up, and we won’t worry about the cancer drugs for kids, because there won’t be the money for it. It’s all very well sitting there smugly thinking about “It’s a great time to get back the farmers to voting David Parker out in Otago.” But I tell you what: by goodness, they were right, weren’t they?
Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you. I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised that we’re not getting any support from the other side of the House for this excellent bill that will tidy up right away what we can before we make the real overhaul that’s needed to fix up the mess that’s been left by the National Government.
The National Party accepts—we heard it just then—that this work needs to be done. They accept that the Resource Management Act isn’t working. They accept that it’s 500-odd pages of utterly complex and laden with legalese that really no normal person can work through. And yet what do they say? “Do nothing.” They were a do-nothing lot in Government and they’re a do-nothing Opposition now. You know, it’s the usual story: “Oh fresh water’s fine.” They deny the problem—“No, no, fresh water’s fine. We don’t need to worry about fencing our streams any further. We don’t need another freshwater plan. No problem at all.”—whilst our indigenous species are dying in the streams; whilst they’re full of algae. You know, they deny the problem.
And then—what do they do then? Deflect. Usual story, usual technique: “Oh no, don’t look over here; look over there. Why are you harassing the farmers?” The Minister did not mention, did not harass, did not attack farmers once in his speech—very careful to recognise that this is a problem for all of New Zealand. They say, “Look at the urbanites. Look at their rivers. Look over there. Don’t look at where the problem is.” And then what do they say: “Delay. Please don’t do this now. Let’s do it a bit later on.”
Tamati Coffey: Hold off.
Dr DUNCAN WEBB: “Hold off. Let’s just put it on pause and have a hui, have a working group.” No, well, you know what? We’re going to do what needs to be done and what can be done now, right now, and we’ve got a piece of legislation in front of us from a hard-working Minister who’s right over this detail and we’re going to get that through.
The Act as it stands is simply not fit for purpose—and we only have to look around us. You’re quite right that we’ve got a problem with housing in New Zealand and this Government is attacking it. We heard it in question time: we’re building houses, but we also want to have an Act which can address those issues. And we’ve got a national policy statement on urban development under way right now to clear those blockages to get that work under way.
And in respect of these changes, let’s look for a moment at the subdivision rule—the idea that you can subdivide land without any consent. That was a silly rule from the start and, in fact, Fulton Hogan, one of our biggest contractors and developers, opposed it from the get-go. And there’s very good reason for them. It is not simply because a subdivision is a large development that really should have a consent or should be presumed to require a consent in the normal course of things; but also because you had the perverse incentives we heard of—that, in fact, developers want consent rules so that onerous conditions aren’t put on them by planners and local councils. So they actually want—good developers, good operators want a robust process so that they can get to the right result through an effective process.
And, of course, then there’s the other operators—the people who are engaging in other businesses. Whether it be quarrying or operating an airport or a shopping mall down the road, they want to be sure that they’re not going to have their activities curtailed by suburbs springing up around them, through reverse sensitivity issues, saying, “Well, we’ve arrived in the neighbourhood. So now you’ve got to stop quarrying your gravel, or operating your aircraft at 11 o’clock at night, or whatever it might be.” So it was a silly rule. Business knew it was silly, and we’re going to change it.
And look can I just say—and I say it again—I’m not surprised but really disappointed that the other side of the House is not supporting this, because as I was looking through the commentary on this, the support across the board for these reforms is really quite astounding. From Kirk Hope of Business New Zealand: “This is a great chance to move towards improved environmental, economic and social wellbeing outcomes.”, he said. Well, you know, it’s great to see that support. And then we’ve got Fish & Game, again saying, “Great, let’s get on with it.”, and they agree it’s time to discuss moving on with the Resource Management Act. Local Government New Zealand—right on board, and then we have the outliers again. Even, I see, Mr Seymour supports us working on this. And yet the National Party’s opposing this, it appears, at first reading and standing back whilst we get on and help sort out our environmental issues.
You know what? For this Government—for this Government—the environment is absolutely at the heart of everything we do. I think sometimes that’s been forgotten—that other priorities were, first and foremost, for the last Government and our environment has slipped behind, woefully slipped behind. We can see that this isn’t fit for purpose by the state of our waterways. The fact is that our waterways, as has been documented, have been falling behind year in, year out. Even though we had lip-service towards making our rivers perhaps wadeable—the shifting standard of swimmability and wadeability—the fact is that when you look at the science, when you look at the quality of the water, when you look at what’s actually happening in that microenvironment, it’s been slipping behind, and we absolutely need freshwater plans that are plans for now; not plans for 2027 or 2035, but plans for now. And that’s what this is going to do and it’s going to enable it. It’s going to bring science to bear by having an expert panel to put those plans in place, so that’s great work.
So really we’ve got to remember that this is absolutely about putting front and centre the quality of our environment. And can I just say that this isn’t about singling out rural and urban. We’re going to have freshwater plans and urban plans which will be universal. So the freshwater rules will apply as much to the Avon River, as it should, and the Heathcote River, and the Styx River—all of which are in my electorate—and I must say, absolutely, we need to clean up those rivers. Now, how we clean them up is going to be different, but the standards that apply, the policies that apply, will be the same and absolutely need to be the same.
When you look at it, this piece of legislation, this amendment bill, by getting rid of some of the fatuous and useless changes made by the last Government will reduce the length of the Act. But also, what’s more, it gets rid of some of the entirely unnecessary rules like the regulation-making power that enabled the Minister to override councils’ decisions. That’s not consultation, that’s not leaving communities to decide what’s best for themselves.
And, of course, there is making sure that compliance works. Absolutely don’t apologise for increasing penalties. Those penalties are really important because we need to send the right incentives. Look, if you discharge pollutants into a stream, the size of the fines which may come down upon you are enormous. They can be crippling in some circumstances. A trivial fine for letting livestock wander through water doesn’t send the right incentive. We’ve got to absolutely—and even at its increased level, I must say it’s relatively modest, and we know that in terms of enforcement that what we want—we don’t want to fine people; we want people to obey the law, so in terms of enforcement, education’s always the first step, and a bit of encouragement, and actually imposing these fines and prosecuting through the courts is a very much a last resort.
So look, this is a fantastic piece of legislation, and we know, of course, that it’s a first step towards making the Resource Management Act what it should be, which is a workable piece of legislation that enables development in a sustainable and appropriate manner and that contributes to our wellbeing whilst protecting our environment. This is a first step. There is much work to do, but, unlike the last Government, we’re not sitting on our hands, this Minister isn’t sitting on his hands, and I commend this bill to the House.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well, it was kind of sad, really, to listen to the member for Christchurch Central trying to fill up 10 minutes—and he ran out of material at about minute two—talking about this bill. There was, if ever there was, the real problem with this Labour-led Government in terms of its approach to issues of this sort relating to the Resource Management Act (RMA). It was the voice and the face of urban, academic elites who actually are disconnected from the reality of what it is that is really at the heart of the issues relating to the Resource Management Act and its amendments.
Now, I listened carefully to the Minister for the Environment during his introductory speech and, frankly, it was incomprehensible. It was just a series of eco-babble statements that actually didn’t say much, and that really goes to the central foundations of what the problem is with this piece of legislation that’s been introduced today.
It’s a piece of legislation that is just further, more complicated tinkering with an RMA that has been tinkered with for nearly 30 years—in fact, over 30 years now. We now have an Act that is about 800 pages long—incomprehensible to laypeople, practically incomprehensible to those that practise in the area of the law relating to RMA matters, and this bill does nothing but add further complication and confusion to an already complicated area.
So, on this side of the House, we made some great changes in the last Parliament. Every single one of them—for the nine years that the Labour Party were in Opposition, every single attempt to work on sensible reform to the RMA was opposed by that party, and now what they want to do is actually just unravel some of the really good, hard-fought-for changes that were made. What we know is that on this side of the House—in fact, it’s conceded by the Minister himself, who, in Opposition, thought he had all the answers, thought he had all the solutions and has been able to, after two years in Government, produce nothing other than a tinkering piece of legislation that all it does is unravel not all but just some of the matters that he didn’t like when he was in Opposition.
Then what of his major substantive reform? Well, actually, nothing—actually nothing, because the coalition cannot get agreement, cannot get a sense of cohesive direction about what should happen in terms of resource planning legislation, and they can’t get it. So what happened? They’ve kicked it to a committee. The Environment Committee is going to report back just before the election next year at a time when there won’t need to be a consensus around the coalition, because they know they can’t get it. So after two years in Government, nine years in Opposition—no real answers, other than to have a go at some of the very sensible changes that we made.
I want to just focus on a couple of pieces of change that will occur in this bill if it progresses through the House to eventually become law. One of them was that we changed the RMA—in our piece of legislation back in 2017—to provide for a situation where if a council had, through its district plan, through its own formal processes, designated land to be zoned for residential development, then there should be no further appeals on the principle of whether that land should be available for residential development or not. Now, that seems to me to be a pretty simple, obvious sort of thing, but this piece of legislation undoes that and it takes it back to a situation where district plans where land has been zoned for residential development will now be able to be appealed and contested. That will only add cost and incredible time delays to prevent and slow down the further building of much-needed residential development around the countryside. I can’t understand where the logic of that is, but it seems to me that this is a bill that is designed not on principle, or trying to improve quality of decision making, but, actually, in terms of trying to score petty political points.
Another area is in the area of water. This is a Government that has yet to learn that it needs to deal with farmers, rather than deal to farmers. That’s what they’ve been doing, not just in this legislation but in lots of pieces of legislation. So let’s just cite one example: they’re going to double the infringement fines for stock wandering through waterways, and they’re going to double it from the current $1,000 fine to $2,000. But there is no comparative fine for people who dump rubbish, for instance, litter, into urban waterways. Now, it was only a few months ago that this same Government voted down my very good member’s bill that would have sought to increase the infringement fines for littering to $1,000. They said that was disproportionately high. They said that $1,000 for littering was disproportionately high, but, oh no, it’s quite all right to fine farmers $2,000 for allowing a cattle beast to wander through a piece of waterway.
So we oppose this legislation and we’ll be looking forward to picking it to pieces at select committee.
Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call on this bill. I only want to make a couple observations. It’s interesting hearing the Opposition party debating against these changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA); it’s interesting because when I look at some of the key targets, the key objectives, or the key concerns, they’ve been around freshwater quality. Of course, every party in this House on the hustings during the last election—every party in this House—stated their concern. In fact, I remember sitting on select committees and the Local Government and Environment Committee and noting the determination of the then Minister, the Hon Nick Smith, to really attack the freshwater problem. I’m wondering, in some way, what has changed in his thinking? Maybe it’s time out on the Opposition benches, I don’t know. Maybe it’s a change in goals, targets, objectives, expectations, but it’s interesting to hear the comment. I don’t think there was one party in the House that opposed the view that we need to do something about our waterways.
I do take on board, and so does New Zealand First—and I know the Rt Hon Winston Peters has been at pains to make it clear—that this current debate that’s been inflamed, pitching urban against rural, is unhelpful. I, as a rural person who lives in the Wairarapa—born and raised there—worked on many farms owned by other people; got up as a child, went to work on my horse to milk Mr Knox’s cows down Konini way, rode my horse back home after that was over. I’m very aware of the old farming practices as opposed to the new, which we see so well demonstrated and lauded at the Ballance Farm Environment Awards that we see every year. There’s some outstanding farmers out there who have implemented environmental plans on their farms that just absolutely astonish me. And, yes, there’s a new generation of farmers who fully understand that they cannot go on farming in the old way, that they have responsibilities as kaitiaki, that if they are intergenerational farmers—I’m thinking right now of a good friend of mine, who’s currently the mayor of Carterton, John Booth. Eight generations on that land—the eighth generation is growing up there now. They fully understand, as a farming family, their intergenerational responsibilities. They have implemented an environmental plan that factors in that need to preserve and protect the land, so that it might continue to sustain their families long into the future, as long as those families wish to continue to farm.
I look at the Young Māori Farmer of the Year, the Ahuwhenua cup. Every winner of the Ahuwhenua cup has been judged and measured against their delivery, in terms of how they are reacting, how they are working as responsible kaitiaki of the land to preserve and protect their land. Many of them have retired off vast tracts of land, fenced them off, and no longer farm those lands, allowing the natural vegetation to regenerate itself and, thereby, provide a buffer zone and protection to the rivers. Why? Because they want to improve the quality of the water which is drawn to feed their stock and which they know their children and wider whanaunga will actually wish, at some time, to bathe, fish, and swim in.
I guess the debate will always be made political, and New Zealander will be pitched against New Zealander, if there’s some political advantage in doing that. That’s just going to happen, isn’t it? I do, I have, and I will continue, as a rural resident, to serve to remind urban people that rather than focusing on the odd farmer who may not be complying with the code of conduct, the behaviour that Fonterra has signed up to—rather than focusing on that one in 100, they should, as good New Zealanders, also go and look at their own rivers and streams and lakes and tributaries around their own cities.
What I see when I go to Auckland, quite honestly, disgusts me. I look at the wheelie bins overflowing. Me and my partner, Christine, we’re the couple that has one rubbish bag every five months—one rubbish bag every five months. We don’t own a wheelie bin; we never will. We recycle. We employ every method that we can to ensure that what we consume, what we buy into the house, is able to be recycled, or we don’t buy it. I still get really frustrated with cosmetic products, and I get very frustrated with pharmaceutical products because they seem to be packaged to hell and back, and they are full of rubbish that should never even come into the country. We fight our own little battle. We have one rubbish bag per month. We’re lifestylers. We have a small block of land. We do everything we can to protect our waterways, because we don’t want to live in a polluted environment ourselves, and we do not want to bequeath that to our grandchildren. I’ve got 14 grandchildren.
To have some people inflaming the urban-rural battle for political gain I just find a little distasteful, actually. There are some incredibly good farmers out there who are leading the way. It might be a good thing if Federated Farmers got a whole bunch of urban people to come and see some of that magnificent work and understand it better.
This Government has a responsibility to do things with the RMA. We sat here in the last term and listened to, I think, 20 hours of debate on National’s “fix it all” for the RMA, and we opposed it. I think so too did Labour. I’m not sure—I can’t recall—but I think the Greens may have as well. Some bits we could’ve gone with, but overall the bill as a whole was a dog. Denis O’Rourke fought that bill valiantly, and no one listened. If the last Government had adopted Denis O’Rourke’s Supplementary Order Papers, on behalf of New Zealand First, it might’ve had a different result. We might’ve had a more workable piece of legislation. But the fact is this Government wants to deal with freshwater quality. There’s a discussion document out there, and we do not have a tin ear. Let me assure the rural communities that New Zealand First does not have a tin ear. We are listening because we understand this.
I grew up in Pahīatua and Mangamuru. This is the home of Keith Jacka Holyoake. We understand that what was said then by Keith Jacka Holyoake is true today. The rural community is the backbone of this country’s economy. Make no doubts about it, the prosperity and wellbeing of this nation lies in the hands of our farming community. People should respect that. But we have some very real obligations and some very big challenges going forward, and I know that the overwhelming majority of the farming community agrees that we need to deal with these things. Climate change adaption is an issue. Meeting people’s needs with affordable housing is an issue.
I’d just like the Opposition to put their hand up once and accept some responsibility. For nine years, they brought in over 50,000 immigrants a year—nine years bringing in a city the size of, what, Blenheim every year and expecting this country just to absorb that, not comprehending, understanding, or willing to have a debate around the infrastructural stress and strain and, dare I say it, the environmental pressures that would come by increasing the population in this country with 50,000 each year—each year; just by the numbers that were coming through the gate. So it’d be nice to hear some people put their hands up.
I want to highlight, in the closing moments, a point of significance. Page two of the bill, the exemptions for the Minister of Education and Minister of Defence: “In order to avoid a risk that unreasonable delays and costs are imposed on the development of Crown assets (including new State schools and defence facilities), the Bill restricts the ability to recommend or impose financial contribution conditions on any notices of requirement lodged by the Minister of Education or the Minister of Defence”—myself—“as a requiring authority.”
It’s worth mentioning the reason why that is, and it’s important that we have a $2.1 billion State regeneration plan. There was a first-principles footprint review—real estate review—of the defence asset, which is under way now. Defence have a need to have greater certainty about long-term planning in the interests of national security, and there are some wider issues that I expect to come out of that first-principles review when it’s completed in around September next year, which will also, I anticipate, potentially have RMA implications. This is a first step—a first step in a journey. It’s a practical step and a pragmatic step. I look forward to hearing the opposing views at select committee and thoroughly recommend the passage of this bill through its first reading, onward to select committee, on behalf of New Zealand First.
Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. National opposes the Resource Management Amendment Bill—opposes this bill—vehemently, and the first comment I would make on this bill is that, in terms of good public policy, this bill fails at the very first hurdle, which is: does this bill in any way achieve the objectives stated for the bill? Clearly, it doesn’t.
When the Minister David Parker announced his action plan for healthy waterways, which is the context for this Resource Management Act (RMA) bill, he made some pretty bold statements, and, with the House’s agreement, I will just quote a few. “Our rivers, lakes, and wetlands are under serious threat after years of neglect.” If that isn’t a divisive comment pitching town against country, then I really don’t know what is. My colleague Scott Simpson pointed to the fact that within this amendment bill for the RMA, the penalties for having stock in waterways are increased by 100 percent, but there is no penalty regime showing any amount of increase for other forms of nutrients going into waterways—for example, people putting rubbish into waterways. So that is a fail at the very first hurdle.
Our action plan for healthy waterways aims to stop the degradation of our rivers and lakes, achieve a noticeable improvement in five years, and restore our waterways within a generation. Nothing the Minister has said in any of the commentary has indicated or acknowledged the years of hard-working stewardship over water-quality issues and land use, of course, by our farming community. I’m not standing here as an apologist for the farming community, even though I do represent a large tract of land in Otago, South Canterbury, and North Otago, which is subject to some pretty intensive farming operation and, of course, the application of irrigation over the past decade or so, which has led to that intensification.
The responsibility for improving water quality we understand, we accept, and we know belongs to all New Zealanders—not just the farmers, not just the towns, not just the cities, but all New Zealanders. I want to turn to some of the planning processes which are contained and outlined in the bill, which merely—far from being a step forward in resource management planning which will give rise to magical improvements in water quality—will, in fact, impose pressures and costs which will fall on every New Zealander. Because a number of the costs which surround the implementation of this RMA bill will fall on ratepayers, because ratepayers are the ones who are going to be funding the development of new plans.
This bill requires that councils notify changes to their regional policy statements and regional plans, and that is to implement the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, no later than 31 December 2023. So that’s little over three years away. The plans have to have been through their final decision-making process by the end of 2025. So that’s only five years.
If one were to contemplate the work that particularly regional councils are already involved in around plan changes—which happen almost on a constant basis. Think about the work that Environment Canterbury, for example, are doing at the moment, at a cost of something like $12 million, paid for by their ratepayers—that’s you and me, those of us who live in Canterbury. That work that is ongoing now, particularly around plan change 7, which means little to people outside the Environment Canterbury area but means a lot to those people involved in that plan change process—what will happen to that under this new requirement, under this RMA bill, for new plans to be notified in three years’ time? Is that work to be put aside? Will that work be subsumed? Will that work be superseded? Well, simply, we don’t know. But what we do know is that the Minister is making an unashamed grab for control over regional councils by putting a provision in his bill that the commissioners that will be in place, appointed to conduct these plan change processes, will not be appointed by the regional councils but by the Minister himself.
Hon Eugenie Sage: Not true.
Hon JACQUI DEAN: Well, the Green member says “not true”. Well, I will pass this paper to the Green member when I have finished my bill, which is imminent.
So I just wanted in this first reading to make that very first point among many, many interventions and points that the National Party will be making on this flawed piece of legislation.
Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister for Land Information): Tēnā koe. Thank you. It’s interesting—the National Party speakers have failed to take any responsibility for the increased complexity of the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill (RLAB) that the Hon Nick Smith introduced, and failed to recognise the major opposition to that bill and just the huge number of hours that this House and select committee spent considering the bill, and the widespread opposition from submitters. So one of the key things that this bill does in the first stage of this Government’s reforms of the Resource Management Act (RMA) is to repeal some of the worst changes that the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill made, because the RMA is a cornerstone of natural resource management in New Zealand. It’s critical that it works well, because otherwise we get poor outcomes in terms of urban planning, we get poor outcomes in terms of the way we manage land and fresh water, and this Government is committed to sustainable land and water management and to improving the rate at which we build houses.
So this is the first stage of a two-stage process, and unlike the National Party, which just rammed through the RLAB, totally ignoring the submissions from the public from both environmental organisations and major businesses, from airport authorities to quarry owners, this is part of a considered process. It’s interesting, too, the fact that the National Party again failed to recognise that the RLAB significantly increased the complexity of the RMA. The Act is now over 800 pages in length. What this bill does is strip out some of those changes to reduce its complexity. One example there is the removal of the provisions around collaborative planning processes, because they were widely criticised by submitters at the time for being overly prescriptive, overly complex, and they took about 22 pages of law.
One of the really important things that this bill does is recognise that the RMA, when it was introduced, and prior to the RLAB, was all about ensuring that neighbours could have a say on what happened in their neighbourhoods and that people concerned with land and water could participate in resource consent applications and have a say about resources in places that they cared about. So the Hon Nick Smith, when he was Minister, in very Draconian changes to the RMA, because National didn’t believe in public participation, moved to shut the public out and prevent notification of resource consent applications if they were for controlled activities, if they were for residential activities, if they were for boundary adjustments, or for subdivision. Seventy-four percent of submitters on those changes to the RMA opposed those restrictions on notification and the shutting out of the public.
What this bill does is repeal those provisions so that once again the public will be able to submit, and once again access to justice in terms of the Environment Court and the full scope of appeal rights will also be restored. Those provisions, which were an attempt by the Hon Dr Nick Smith to streamline housing development, to change the RMA, to continue the HASHAA legislation—and it was a hash, the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act, which has directly resulted in the mess that we have in terms of Ihumātao, because those special housing areas shut people out from their ability to make submissions.
When you change the presumption, as the former Minister did, around subdivision so you make subdivision a much more permitted activity—rather than the constraint that was originally in the RMA, which allowed subdivision only if a provision and a plan or resource consent allowed it—that meant that development was occurring in areas that are potentially at risk from changing climates, from coastal hazards. We need residential development to be well planned. We need to ensure that it’s well connected to transport links so that we get compact cities. We need to ensure that it’s in areas that aren’t at risk of flooding or coastal erosion. So this bill goes back and reinstates that original provision around subdivision—that it’s not permitted unless it’s explicitly provided for by a district plan or a resource consent.
Again, with the changes around appeals, that means that when applicants are concerned about the conditions that the council may have put on a consent, it can appeal those in relation to subdivision and residential activities. The appeal process is a very real check and balance on the power of councils, and stripping it out, as the former Government did with RLAB, reduced access to justice and led to some poor decisions.
One of the best things that this bill does, in my view, is it removes the excessive ministerial powers which the Hon Dr Nick Smith put in in section 360D. That was an ability for the Minister to override rules in district and regional plans in determining what activities could be notified or not. It was an effort by the former Government to fast-track decision making so that effects weren’t properly considered, and that goes right against the heart of the RMA, which is all about our sustainable management. So those inappropriate regulation-making powers in section 360D are coming out under this bill.
One of the other key changes that is a major improvement in the bill is the provisions around fresh water, because as the Minister, the Hon David Parker, noted, the 2017 National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management—there is no hope of implementing the provisions in that by 2030, let alone implementing the provisions in the stronger national policy statement (NPS) on fresh water which will go into force next year.
So this bill is providing for a new process, not excluding nominees of regional councils, as the Hon Jacqui Dean suggested, but having a panel, similar to the Auckland Unitary Plan process, where up to five members on that panel will consider changes to plans around fresh water. Two of those members will be recommended by councils—they can either be councillors or external commissioners; two of them will be appointed by central government, and another one will have expertise in mātauranga Māori and tikanga Māori. So that will be a panel of expert commissioners that will ensure that plan changes to implement the NPS in relation to fresh water can be considered in an expeditious way, making our planning process much more nimble, because we have a major challenge to ensure that we can swim in all of the waterways that farmers, rural communities, and everyone wants to swim in. We want streams and rivers that are safe for swimming, not the half of the sites which are currently monitored which are unsafe for swimming. So that’s making this new process of considering changes to plans in relation to fresh water much more agile.
It is about safeguarding farmers, because it is safeguarding brand New Zealand. It is safeguarding the environmental credentials that we go to the world as a basis for marketing our food and fibre products. We’re investing in sustainable management, and there’s a major package in Budget 2019 of over $200 million to support sustainable land and water management. So this is part of an integrated approach by Government to significantly lifting fresh water management and improving how we do that.
One issue where the Greens have a different position is around climate change. The urgency of the climate crisis—the school strikes that will be occurring tomorrow, where our young leaders highlight the urgent need for action. Yes, we’re acting with the zero carbon bill. Yes, there will be changes to the emissions trading scheme, but we can improve the RMA by requiring decision makers to take into account the effects of greenhouse gas emissions for applications that are coming before them.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Who took it out?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE: At the moment it is excluded under the RMA. And, yes—the Hon Nick Smith is saying “Who took it out?”—it did come out. It needs to go back in, because the seriousness of the climate crisis is much more recognised and at the moment the Act explicitly prohibits any consideration of emissions and their contribution to climate change unless it’s in relation to renewable energy. So the Green Party will be very interested in the submissions from the public on that part of the Act and whether there should be change there.
The other major area is in relation to enforcement. I fully support the changes which will allow the Environmental Protection Authority to work alongside regional councils and, potentially, take over some enforcement action. Those enforcement provisions, as a big Environmental Defence Society report highlighted, have not been properly implemented. They need to be. If we’re making rules, they need to be enforced. The Green Party supports this bill. Thank you.
ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to just take a short call on the Resource Management Amendment Bill at first reading. I will focus my contribution on housing. But before I do so, I would like to address the comments by Dr Duncan Webb earlier this afternoon where he described this bill as a precursor to the real work. I would like to remind this House, and everyone watching, that we are two-thirds of the way through this Government’s first term in their year of delivery, after they’ve spent nine years in Opposition thinking about this stuff, and we get this tiny tinkering around the edges bill.
He then went on to say that the National Party did nothing for fresh water in their nine years. I would like to remind him that the first ever national policy statement on fresh water was done under the National Party: $400 million into cleaning up our waterways; the Land and Water Forum; and the Land, Air, Water Aotearoa report that says our waterways are improving. What did the Labour Government prior to the National Government do? Nothing; $30 million—a pittance and no national policy statement. But Dr Webb comes to the House today to call this bill somewhat revolutionary—this tiny tinkering bill.
We worked with farmers over our nine years to get 95 percent of our waterways fenced. We worked with farmers and regional councils to put in place plans to reduce nitrates in our waterways. And this Government comes with this bill today to the House that works against farmers and not with them. It’s already been mentioned, but one of the things in the bill that highlights that so well is the increased fine for stock wandering into waterways, which is a $2,000 fine. As it was pointed out earlier by Mr Scott Simpson, it’s so funny that earlier this year we had a litter bill that would have increased the fines for people all around this country littering to a thousand dollars, but that was voted down by this Government. That was voted down. But here we are again, this Government dumping on farmers at every possible opportunity, because here it’s fine to increase the fines but not earlier in the year.
The objectives of this bill are to reduce complexity, increase certainty, restore public participation opportunities, and improve Resource Management Act processes. This is code. I’ll tell you what it’s code for. It’s code for not addressing housing affordability, making it harder to build houses, and slowing down the house building process. And for a Government apparently dedicated to solving the housing crisis in their year of delivery, this bill is a bitter disappointment. Rather than helping to get houses built, it will, in fact, do the exact opposite.
I suppose, though, that this is at least in line with Labour’s overall achievement in office so far, which is not to build houses, because KiwiBuild clearly didn’t achieve that. Now they’re making it under this bill so much harder for the private sector to build houses—the only sector so far that is actually building any houses and now they will find it much more difficult as well.
As I’ve already said, this bill is a tiny tinkering around the edges bill, which mostly undoes the good work of the last National Government. They’ve kicked any major reform down the road, because they can’t get agreement between the different parties. So we oppose this bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call Dr Liz Craig—five minutes.
Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill will be incredibly, incredibly beneficial to Southland, where many of our waterways are under incredible pressure. And what I want to just briefly talk about is the New River Estuary, because I think it highlights some of the challenges we face. I think when you go out on the estuary you realise that out by where the sea comes in, the bottom is actually gravelly sand. But the closer you go up to where the rivers come in, you end up getting deeper and deeper into thick oozy mud. The problem we’ve got is we’ve got macro algae. There’s overgrowth because of nutrients, but in some places that macro algae is even struggling to survive and it’s dying and we’re ending up with sulphur embedded in the muck. It’s incredibly, incredibly sad to see what was a once beautiful estuary.
But I also want to talk about the work that we’ve been doing in rural communities where farmers and urban people are coming together and taking joint responsibility and ownership of that. I think where this bill comes in is because it’s going to give us that broader strategic planning framework. Having that consistency of an approach is going to make a huge difference in terms of what’s happening on the ground. What this bill is is it’s a first step in a comprehensive review of our resource management system. We’ve launched that in July this year, but some of those findings won’t be available into mid-2020. But we can’t wait till then, particularly for our freshwater management. We need to get on and do some really important things.
This is where this bill comes in, because what it does is it provides some of that basic infrastructure so we can start to implement our Essential Freshwater action plan. Essential and central to that is the new National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. What this will do is replace the old national policy statement (NPS), the 2017 version, which really was inadequate, looking at some of the things that we’re seeing down south. That will bring it in 2020.
But the problem we’ve got is that we’ve got incredible variability in terms of regional councils even implementing the old NPS 2017. So what we need to do is put in place a new infrastructure and framework so that we can get on and make those plan changes by 2025. What this bill introduces is a specialised planning process for councils. What they’ve got to do is make the changes to their regional freshwater plans to implement the NPS for freshwater management no later than 31 December 2023. That’s to actually notify those changes, and then make the final decisions on them by 31 December 2025 to have those plans finalised by then.
What this does is it just creates a framework for consistency around that. So within six months of notifying those plans, what the regional councils need to do is provide all the necessary documentation that’s outlined in this bill, under new Part 4 in clause 72, to the Chief Freshwater Commissioner. So 20 working days prior to doing this, they must also notify the commissioner about their nominees for their regional council commissioners and their local tangata whenua nominations for appointment to the freshwater hearing panels.
Once that information is received, what the Chief Freshwater Commissioner then has to do is to convene a freshwater hearing panel and that will be to hear those public submissions and to engage in that, listen to that public debate on the adequacy of those plans and where they might need to be improved. So, generally, what we’re expecting here is that we’ll have five commissioners that are on those hearing panels. Two of those will be hearing commissioners appointed by the Minister, two of them will be appointed by regional council, and one of them nominated by tangata whenua. So the sense is that they will be convening and listening to the public submissions.
But the ability to have specialist expertise with those appointed commissioners, appointed by the Minister, and also having that local expertise and tangata whenua representation means that we’ve got that right mix of expertise across a whole range of areas that can then come and make informed decisions in terms of recommendations on what those submissions are.
So what will happen then is that the recommendations from that panel will then go back to council and council has 20 working days to respond to those recommendations, to decide whether they’ll accept them or not accept them. Then the bill also provides a framework where you can appeal to the Environment Court and also the High Court in some aspects. So this creates that overarching framework within which we can get those plans in place by 2025 and to start moving forward to improve our water quality. It’s an incredibly, incredibly important bill and I commend this bill to the House.
Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you very much. It’s great to be able to make a contribution this afternoon in this debate. The title of this bill should really read “Repeal National’s Pragmatic Changes to the Resource Management Act.”
I’m disappointed by this bill. With all the hype around it, it promised so much, but in the detail, really, all it is doing is repealing fundamental things that positively made a difference for residents in New Zealand who were going about their daily business, trying to get a consent—it is now going to be repealed. If we look at the fast-track process for land-use consents that we set up, 10 working days is now going to move to a standard 20 working days. For someone who just wants to extend their deck, why on earth would the Government be proposing extending that time frame out to about one month, when you take into account all of the weekends as well?
It’s interesting, also, when we look at other aspects of this bill, because I can’t see how this bill is going to help housing affordability in New Zealand, which is a really topical issue. When I look at the detail of this bill—and I’m going to look forward to interrogating it at the Environment Committee I now sit on—this bill is going to create more bureaucracy and more time delays. And if we look in particular at the appeal rights, the appeal rights are going to be extended, and that’s what I mean: there’s a classic example of where there’s going to be more red tape, bureaucracy, and poor timeliness around this bill.
If we think about the nine years of the National Government, when we had the Hon Dr Nick Smith making changes to this as environmental Minister, making good, pragmatic changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA), all of my constituents in the Ōtaki electorate benefit from those changes, because Nick Smith brought about changes to the RMA to ensure that projects of national significance could be called in in a nine-month time frame. That means that the Kāpiti Expressway went through a nine-month consenting process. Now we are enjoying driving on it. That means that Transmission Gully, which is going to be open, hopefully, next year, went through the same call and board of inquiry process. I take my hat off to Nick Smith. Also the Hon Amy Adams made good, pragmatic changes to the RMA. And now we’re in this House debating this bill, which is all about repealing the good work that the National Government did. We’re going to hear this afternoon from Todd Muller. He’ll be focusing in, as our agriculture spokesperson, on talking about fresh water and also the cost of compliance on farmers with stock exclusion.
The one that concerns me also in this bill, and it hasn’t been mentioned in speeches this afternoon, is that this sets up a Chief Freshwater Commissioner. Who might that person be? Well, we might hear from the Green Party that they want Mike Joy—someone like that as the Chief Freshwater Commissioner—wide-ranging powers.
Todd Muller: Or Russel Norman.
Hon NATHAN GUY: Oh, yes! There’s another one—Russel Norman.
Hon Amy Adams: God help us!
Hon NATHAN GUY: Heavens above, the whole country would grind to a halt if you had one of those two gentlemen as the Chief Freshwater Commissioner. We want to know what the Government expects around this person.
Finally, I just want to say this point: the changes—and we made three changes over nine years in the National Government—have all been successful. They’ve made a difference for consumers and residents and motorists and the like, getting big infrastructure projects up and built. This bill this afternoon is a sham. It’s going to do nothing, and we wait until we can interrogate it and kick it around in the Environment Committee. That’s why we oppose this bill.
ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I’m really pleased to stand today and take a call on the Resource Management Amendment Bill. It is really a great pleasure. The Resource Management Act (RMA) has been around since 1991, and I remember at law school in 1993 when we first started learning about it. At that point, it was about 400 pages of text. We’ve now got about 800 pages, and the bill is, essentially, a mismatch of many, many years—many, many years—of working very piecemeal across the system to create bits and pieces and changes for the Act. We know, across the community, that everyone in the community finds that this Act is very difficult to use. It is complex. It is a weighty piece of legislation. And that’s why I’m really delighted to be standing alongside the Government when we bring the first tranche—the first changes—of the Resource Management Amendment Bill to this House. Of course, we will be working in the future, in the next short while, to bring the second, more substantive changes to this House.
So I’d like to thank the Minister, the Hon David Parker, for bringing this legislation. I know that, due to the sheer complexity of the RMA that we have now, the officials have worked extremely hard, and this has been a huge task even just to get to this point. So I’d like to congratulate the Minister and his officials for that. I too am a select committee member, and I’m looking forward to hearing from the individuals from the community, from our local government, and from our businesses, and I welcome those submissions so that we can get the best legislation possible.
I just want to address the Hon Nathan Guy’s comment about the Chief Freshwater Commissioner’s powers and who that person might be. Having read the bill as it sits, I would just like to direct the Hon Nathan Guy to Subpart 3 in Part 4 of Schedule 1, “Freshwater hearing panels”. Section 57 clearly explains the powers and what that freshwater commissioner will do. I recommend that the member read the bill.
We have this complex piece of legislation, and it has been groundbreaking, and lots of Ministers have had the opportunity to comment on this bill and to make changes to it, but what we can say is that New Zealanders care deeply about our environment, and we care deeply—it underpins our lifestyles, our livelihoods, and our very wellbeing. So this bill as it stands, with its four changes, is a great start on fixing the intractable issues that sit within the bill.
We’ve got some areas that are absolutely underperforming, and so, yes, we are looking at rolling back some of those conditions that were put in place in 2017. We’re taking the 22 pages of that process out of the Act so that there will be a faster process—one that, by the way, people have naturally used. We do not need 22 pages of regulations to tell us, as a community, how we should communicate. So we’re looking at four major parts to this bill.
Freshwater quality—we all know 92 percent of Kiwis tell us they want us to move quickly on fresh water. They want to be able to swim in their local rivers or seas. They want to have certainty of where it’s safe to swim. And they do not want wadeable rivers and streams. They want us to act, and we are clearly doing so.
This bill creates a new National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, and it establishes a freshwater planning process and it creates a Chief Freshwater Commissioner. I wanted to pick up on the member Dr Liz Craig’s comments in regards to the five-commissioners process just by acknowledging and recognising in this House the tangata whenua representation as a commissioner. So I just wanted to read—it is clause 58 of new Part 4 of Schedule 1, “Composition of freshwater hearings panel”, and I’m moving down through subclause (1) down to paragraph (c): “1 freshwater hearings commissioner with an understanding of tikanga Māori and mātauranga Māori who—(i) is nominated by local tangata whenua; or (ii) if no nomination is made, is appointed by the Chief Freshwater Commissioner.”
I think it’s very important that I mention that because, as we know, the relationship of land—whenua—and Māori is so important, and fresh water is part of that. We know from many years of participation under the Resource Management Act process that this is an often long process for Māori to constantly have to participate, and so by tying this in and building in a particular role with a particular skill base, it will, hopefully, in fact, make it a much clearer process for community participants.
Just to continue back to the bill—I’ve got off-track. I see I’ve only got three minutes to go. The other aspect that I particularly like—the other part that I particularly like—is the climate change adaptation. We’re going to hear from the member Todd Muller, I hear, so he will know that our community of Tauranga has a huge complexity of issues around climate change. We’re a coastal city. How do we manage those changes coming at us? Are they going to impact on our very way of life?
For us, we’re not just looking at election cycles; we’re looking at a 30-plus - year plan—an ongoing process—so this is the first tranche to start this process. We’re looking, of course, at addressing affordable housing and thriving urban communities—things that had been done particularly poorly by the National Government, I must say, for a long, long time, the nine years, of homelessness that we had in this country.
Hon Amy Adams: And it’s got worse under Labour.
ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: It has not got worse under Labour. People are now not so afraid to come out.
We need to create a system that better enables growth within economic limits—sorry, environmental limits. It is so important—[Interruption] The boys are laughing at me. We need a system that aligns the economy with the environment, not the other way around—not the other way around.
We need to ensure, as a country, that this bill is very clear that there will be consistent changes put in place to better support the other legislative programmes that we are doing across the Government—for example, the alignment of Kāinga Ora with the RMA, and the interface between. We don’t just look at the silos and we don’t just look at one part of the building programme; we look across the entire environment. I am delighted to commend this bill to the House.
TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise to speak against this legislation. There is an affliction that political commentators believe occurs with Governments that have been around for a long, long time, which is that they start developing a tin ear and they mix hubris with arrogance, and they put forward legislation that doesn’t in any way reflect what the community would expect.
This piece of legislation fits that hubris and arrogance, because one of the core elements of the legislation that we’re discussing here this afternoon is a requirement for regional councils to notify the changes that this Government proposes through their freshwater reforms by 2023 and to have them operative by 2025. Right now, across the country, those freshwater proposals, including that suggestion, are out for consultation, initially for six weeks, but after rural New Zealand reacted with understandable disdain, given a two-week extension. The very issue of the role of regional councils and the time frame that they would need to stand up to these proposals are in that document, and this Government is standing and saying, “We want your feedback.” No, they don’t. They have already decided what they want, and this is what’s in this legislation.
This is a ridiculous consultation process. It’s a fraud. It’s a farce. There are people out there who are hugely engaged in trying to work out what this means for their businesses, and this Government has already put the key components of its expectation of regional councils in this legislation.
Three days ago, the leaders of regional councils and local government met in this city to reflect on the proposals that the Government have put forward in their freshwater plans, including the obligation on them to notify by 2023 and to have them operative at 2025, and they are hugely concerned at what is proposed. They are participating in a good-faith process, where the Government has said, “This is a proposal. Give us your feedback.”, and while they’re asking that question with one hand, they’re legislating the answer with the other. It is disgraceful.
This Government has lost its way. It is full of hubris and arrogance. They are putting in this legislation its expectations around what it expects of regional councils whilst at the same time running a pretence of a consultation process, and they wonder why in rural New Zealand they’ve all had a gutsful. They’ve had a gutsful because that type of arrogance is now endemic.
So why has it been rushed through? Well, one of the reasons it’s being rushed through is that David Parker is determined to finish what he started in 2005. He has a fundamental belief that rural New Zealand’s activities need to be constrained, because he stood shoulder to shoulder with Prime Minister Clark when she stood up at the Knowledge Wave conference and said, “Rural New Zealand provincial businesses—sunset industries. Their best days are behind them.” Well, this party rejects that fundamentally. David Parker doesn’t, and we are in a fight for who will win on behalf of the farmers.
I look directly across to New Zealand First. There’s another reason why this has been put here. It is because your leader has made it clear that he wants all this sort of stuff dealt with this year to try and get a bit of clear air for next year. Well, let me tell you, pushing through a process which is a complete sham of a consultation, including legislating for what you’ve already decided on whilst, at the same time, asking regional councils for their feedback—
Mark Patterson: Nothing’s decided.
TODD MULLER: —that is outrageous. It’s legislated—it’s in here. It’s in here. Why do you do a consultation if you’re already putting the legislation forward? It’s because you’ve already made the decision and you want to progress it. I tell you, rural New Zealand will not forget this. They will not forget it.
The last comment I’d like to make, just quickly, is that there has been a lot of talk, particularly by the Government side, around the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and the fact that it needs to be amended. Those same regional councils have made it very clear that they have run a process on the back of Nick Smith’s national policy statement for fresh water—new regulations promulgated just simply two years ago. They’re running a process that is consultative, that is collaborative, and that is community by community, looking at rivers and streams, and making sure that over time they improve to the communities’ expectations. All that collaborative process is lost if you run—as this legislation assumes—a process which needs to be notified by 2023 and operative in 2025.
To all those listening, this reflects a Government that is lost in hubris and arrogance. It consults on the one hand and has already made up its mind on the other, and I tell you that New Zealanders won’t forget.
Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I am delighted to have the opportunity to take the last call on this debate and, really, to take issue with many of the statements that have been made by the Opposition and, in fact, to set things right in terms of what people might understand about what this bill does. I have listened carefully to the speakers from the Opposition and really tried to understand what they were saying—I’m sorry, with the exception of Mr Nathan Guy. I just tuned out when he was speaking, unfortunately, which perhaps says something about the quality of what he was saying. But let me go and talk about what each of the other speakers have said.
I want to start with the Hon Judith Collins, who in her speech said of our New Zealand farmers that there are “no better farmers in the world”—no better farmers in the world. We agree. New Zealand farmers as a whole are excellent. New Zealand farmers really do try hard. New Zealand farmers actually produce the lowest-carbon meat in the world. They’re actually really efficient producers in many, many ways, but there are some farmers who let the others down. There are some farmers who do not do as well as others.
When I went and sat on some of the hearings for the zero carbon bill, I was struck by some feedback we got from DairyNZ, I think it was, or one of the entities that represents farmers. What they said was that they were finding there was a generational divide amongst farmers: that many younger farmers were keen to get going on improving environmental standards; that many younger farmers had a great understanding of what needed to be done, as did many older farmers; that many younger farmers wanted the help and the support to change for the better, and many younger farmers were doing this already. There are brilliant and fantastic farmers who are doing their utmost to support waterways, who have engaged in riparian planting, who have limited their stock numbers, and who have worked really hard to understand what happens with the nutrient flows from their land. Some farmers are doing it. We want to make it possible for all farmers to do it.
So in terms of the farmers, I say to the farming community: do not believe the doom and gloom that is coming from some farming groups. Do not believe the doom and gloom that says that farming in this country is at an end—it is not. It is not. What we seek to do is ensure that the practices of the many excellent farmers are shared amongst all farmers. We have heard that membership numbers from some farming groups are falling because they no longer represent the views of all farmers, and that the progressive farmers want to get on with it. So, yes, to the Hon Judith Collins, there are no better farmers in the world than our farmers, and this Government supports them.
The Hon Scott Simpson said that the Resource Management Act (RMA) is complex and tough. Indeed it is. Mr Speaker, as you know, I know a fair amount about tax law, and people say that the Income Tax Act is complicated. I say to you as a specialist who does understand the structure of that Act that the RMA is unwieldy, it is complex, I think it is more difficult even than our income tax law, and it definitely needs reform. This is the start of that reform. So I agree with Mr Scott Simpson. What this bill does is it starts that work of tidying up the RMA.
Then Mr Simpson said that there was no major substantive reform in this particular set of legislation, yet the most recent speaker, Mr Todd Muller, spent a lot of time telling us that there was a lot of reform to water. That is the major reform in this piece of legislation. The other stuff is tidy-up stuff, but it’s tidy-up work that needs to be done.
Then I want to sort of focus on something that Jacqui Dean said—and other speakers have referred to it—and that is the issue of the costs that will fall on ratepayers for developing new plans. New water plans will need to be developed by 2023. They will need to be in place by 2025. Why? Because we actually need to get going on this. New Zealanders have signalled loud and clear that they want swimmable waterways, and, yes, those costs will fall on all of us through our rates. That’s the nature of government. We actually do need to pay for good government; it doesn’t come for free. So that’s a shame, but we will do our best to make sure that we get good processes in place.
Erica Stanford was concerned that, in fact, the start of the bill was code for not addressing the housing crisis. There are many ways to address the housing crisis, and this Government has taken many actions in respect of that. We have banned foreign speculators. We have shut down tax breaks. We have built an extraordinary number of social housing places. We have passed the Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities Bill. We have put the Kāinga Ora bill into place, and that bill will have extraordinary consequences for getting housing reform under way. The RMA is one part of that. It is one part of that, and no single bill contains a magic solution.
Then we had speakers complaining that this bill doubled—it doubled—the infringement fees for some offences. So if we look in the draft bill itself, you’ll see that this is in clause 70 of the bill. It amends section 360 of the Act, and in section 360 of the Act as it stands it says that there is a $2,000 fine for each infringement offence. Now, in the amendment that’s proposed, that $2,000 maximum fine stays in place for natural persons. The only variation there is that for persons other than natural persons—so that’ll be the corporate farmers—that fine goes up to $4,000. That’s a maximum fine, and it’s based on the number of stock units that are infringing. So for each stock unit that’s infringing, there is a fine of $100, up to a maximum of $2,000. In the amended bill, for natural persons it’s as it was in the old Act—so it stays the same for natural persons—and in the case of corporate farmers, greater responsibility is asked for. The maximum fine goes up to $4,000, set at $100 per stock unit. So for all the complaining that it was a massive doubling of the fine, when you look at the bill, you see that.
Then, if we talk about something that was said by the most recent speaker, Mr Todd Muller—and Mr Todd Muller had a complaint. He said that on the one hand, this Government was out consulting about water, but on the other, in this bill, it had its plans already in place. It was, he said, a sham consultation: we were engaging in just sort of a window-dressing exercise by getting out there. But if I look at the consultation that is out there at the moment for action on healthy waterways, what is the Government doing? It is getting out there and it is consulting on the draft National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. It is consulting on the proposed national environmental standards for fresh water. It is out there consulting on the draft stock exclusion section regulations. They are all up for consultation; nothing is set in stone.
There are proposals there. So the consultation doesn’t start from a blank slate; it starts from some proposals, and those proposals are about the national policy statement for fresh water, which will be put in place by this bill. But it is a draft national policy statement. It is a proposed national environmental standard. It is a draft stock exclusion. All are up for discussion, all are up for people to be fully consulted on, and that is exactly the point of the consultation. It is no sham; it is a real consultation that our Ministers and the officials are deeply engaged in to make sure that we get it right.
This is an excellent bill. It puts in place some much-needed low-level reform that’s needed for the RMA. It sets the ground for the extensive reform of the RMA, which will come in the second tranche of reform, and it gets in place the reforms that are needed for freshwater management that New Zealanders—ordinary, everyday New Zealanders—told us were so important and told us matter to them. I commend this bill to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Resource Management Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
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.
Bill read a first time.
Bill referred to the Environment Committee.
Bills
Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2)
In Committee
Debate resumed from 24 September.
Part 1 Amendments to Local Government Act 2002 (continued)
JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): As you can see, I’m incredibly excited to speak about this piece of legislation, as this Government gets on with fixing nine years of neglect of a range of areas, including local government. In this committee stage, I’d like to specifically focus in on the bill, and I have some questions for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, and I’m speaking to the aspect of Supplementary Order Paper 323 that amends Schedule 2, which sets out amendments to Schedule 3 of the principal Act to limit who can submit a reorganisation initiative, or investigation request to the commission, to affected local authorities, the Minister, or groups—and here’s the key point I want to narrow down into—or persons comprising at least 10 percent of electors in the affected area.
So what I understand that to mean is that if somebody within an area would like a reorganisation of council—and often the word “reorganisation” is used with the word “amalgamation”, synonymous with “amalgamation”—so if that person would like reorganisation/amalgamation, then they need to have a petition of 10 percent of the electors in order for that request to be put to the Local Government Commission. Now, my question is around that 10 percent threshold. First of all, I’d like to know why the Minister settled on 10 percent; 10 percent does seem like quite a high threshold. If we look at the average ward, I know in the Hamilton area there are probably around 40,000 in the ward. So you’d be looking at 4,000 signatures on that petition. So the question is: why the 10 percent mark? Why not five, why not 15, why, you know, not 20? So that’s my first question: why that 10 percent?
My second question is: is that 10 percent taken from the one ward, or the two, three, four, five wards that this person would like to amalgamate? So, for example—I suppose I’ll link it to the Hamilton area—the Hamilton East ward; so if the petitioner’s from the Hamilton East ward, and they want to amalgamate that with Hamilton West, Waikato, Waipā, amalgamate those councils, and we know they need to receive 10 percent—
Tim van de Molen: Oh, promoting amalgamation. Ha, ha!—here we go; this’ll go down well.
JAMIE STRANGE: I’m not proposing amalgamation, so don’t get too excited there, sir. I’m just asking the question: do the 4,000 signatures only have to come from the one ward, or can they get them from surrounding wards—for example, one from Hamilton East, one from West, one from Waipā, one from Waikato—to make up that 4,000? So a little bit of clarification around that would be helpful. The other aspect I’d like to know is—certainly, obviously, related to that—is that 10 percent of all available electors? I assume it is, but I’m focusing on the point that only around 30 to 40 percent vote. So you know, is it 10 percent of those who regularly vote, or is it 10 percent of the whole ward?
The next question I have around the petition is, what type of petition can that resident submit? So traditionally, petitions have been written, where people might stand outside supermarkets or train stations or various places, and people sign on the piece of paper, and then that submission is presented, and, in this case, the submission would, obviously, be presented to the Local Government Commission. However, can that elector submit that petition online? We are, you know, in an ever-changing world, and most people in New Zealand do have access to the internet, although maybe not with the live streaming speeds that we need at times. But can that submission be presented online, or does it have to be in terms of a written—yeah, I don’t see any clarification in the bill, so I’d just like to know the form of that petition.
So I guess, just to summarise, the first question is around the 10 percent threshold; so, first of all, why the 10 percent threshold? We have heard from a number of councils that they’re not interested in the amalgamation. Is this 10 percent, in a way, sort of giving certainty to councils, saying, “We’re going to set the bar high, so you can relax around the aspect of amalgamation.”? Then the second question links to those 10 percent—just in one ward, or all of the wards whom they would like to amalgamate? Then, thirdly, what type of petition, so whether it’s a written petition, or can that petition be online; some sort of, like, Change.org-type website, for example. So I’ll just leave those questions with the Minister, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. Thank you.
GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d like to commend the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, the Minister responsible for a most excellent Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 323 that puts into some place some really good changes to the initial piece of legislation. It’s encouraging to see that: how important it is to consider the wellbeings that have been reintroduced into how local government operates. And I think a lot of these changes quite accurately reflect an increased focus on not just doing business in local government, but also considering those wider concerns of people, their health, their wellbeing, and their general happiness, and that’s good to see. I’m particularly interested in the point that this bill and the SOP cover around the role of council-controlled organisations (CCOs), and CCOs have been an area where there has been, most definitely, some interesting debate around how they are actually operating, and whether they are serving the people of New Zealand accurately, and well enough, or not.
So the provision within the SOP is to improve the transparency of CCOs, and how they’re currently operating, and also to make them a bit more responsive. When we look at some of those issues that this SOP’s trying to address, it’s been very interesting to note that since the enactment of the primarily legislation—the Local Government Act 2002—the use of CCOs has changed quite a lot. My question to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, is whether there’s adequate flexibility going forward. So we’ve already seen a great level of change, and I’m interested to get any feedback possible from the Minister to give a sense of reassurance: if we’ve seen such a great level of change, in terms of how CCOs are operating, will the current legislation provide sufficient flexibility for change going forward in future? I do note—I can’t remember where I read it, but I do know that there’s further review going on for how CCOs are operated, later this year. So interesting to see whether that work in itself being undertaken would cover off that issue being raised.
So some of the issues that have been raised in terms of how much CCOs have changed in terms of their arrangements—this has actually caused some of the issues which this Supplementary Order Paper is addressing. So it’s noted that the current framework gives local authorities little formal power to control their CCOs. So when you’re looking at things like water or really key amenities for the public of New Zealand, it’s important that those lines of accountability through those ratepayers are maintained. I see that there has been some concern that there’s been far too high a degree of separation in that space.
The other issue that has been raised is that it didn’t provide for alignment between local authority and CCO planning processes. Whether it’s in small areas or even far more complicated and intensely developed urban areas, it’s crucially important that we have an alignment between what the local authority is planning to go forward and also what the CCO is doing on a day-to-day basis and in terms of their board and their priorities. So I really hope to see—and maybe the Minister can help give some reassurance in that space—that with these changes we’ll see an increased ability for alignment between the local authority and the CCO planning processes.
The other issue that has been brought up as well is that it’s not kept up enough with responsiveness to iwi and Māori, and that’s a real concern, given our obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. So there’s been an evolution in terms of CCOs, and, quite simply, they haven’t been able to demonstrate, in some cases around New Zealand, how they are adequately consulting and engaging with iwi in terms of some of the decisions they’re making. This is particularly important when you’re dealing directly with natural resources. So the real issues that are being addressed through some of these are there seems to be a lack of long-term planning instruments from CCOs. It will be really important to see that we’ve got an ability through these changes to adapt and give the public of New Zealand a reassurance that what’s happening in the CCO area lines up with what should be happening in an overall strategic plan for the area. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): It’s such an apt time to be discussing this bill, particularly Part 1 of the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2). I can imagine: it’s Friday night, we’re right in the middle of local body elections—
Tim van de Molen: It’s Thursday.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Actually, I thought it was Thursday.
GREG O’CONNOR: Sorry, Thursday night. Around the country there will be—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): It seems like Friday, I agree.
GREG O’CONNOR: We are always far ahead of our time on this side of the House, unlike the other side. So there’ll be candidate meetings taking place tonight around the country.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yeah, but none of which is actually in this quite focused—
GREG O’CONNOR: Well, if I could just give some context to this please, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, I don’t need any context—I don’t need any context.
GREG O’CONNOR: What I would like to do is speak to replacement section 24, set out in clause 9, which is around the scope of local government reorganisation, because, of course, that’s one of the topics that is hot on the local body election meetings at the moment. Each of those bodies is speaking—for example, subsection (1) “Local government reorganisation may provide for 1 or more of the following matters [to be considered]:”. Now, these are the very matters that will be very important to be discussed. As people are limbering up for their meetings tonight, fresh in their minds will be what the organisation they are standing for will or may look like, because these, if we go to section 24(1), are the very criteria which will be used to decide what the future of those very local government bodies that these keen young men and women, and older men and younger women that are going to be standing for these bodies will have to consider—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, only if they are contemplating reorganisation.
GREG O’CONNOR: Well, this is the whole point. Reorganisation is a very live issue, and the very fact that we are considering this legislation now just shows—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I doubt any candidate would be standing up talking about council reorganisation. Focus on the bill.
GREG O’CONNOR: Well, actually, I am on the bill. I’m on section 24(1)—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That’s right. Well, speak to it. I’m on it too.
GREG O’CONNOR: —because it actually goes to—if I can say—the constitution of a new district or region. This, again, is going to be an incredibly important part of this because, again, when one stands, one doesn’t know whether this is going to be still the body that one was standing for. It includes the constitution of a local authority for that district or region because, in the past, determination of such a district or region has been set. Some study I’ve been involved in in the past—one of those things that people most recognise, actually, is they know which rugby club region they’re in. That’s what determines that. So it’s important that the issues that do come are local issues; the local body means just that: local issues.
Going on to paragraph (c)—where I may have exhausted everything we are ever going to eke out of paragraph (b)—“the abolition of a district or region, including the dissolution or abolition of the local authority for that district or region:”. Again, we’ve seen, in our time, something that may have directly affected the Hawke’s Bay and Wellington—the debates that go on. Again, this is what is part of this proposed amendment here—the debates that have gone on, the history. In Hawke’s Bay, it looked like it was a lay down misère, at the time, that there would be an amalgamation. Surprise, there were a lot of locals around the local dam out there, and, at the end of the day, it was rejected by the local people. So the local body—those who, as I say, are limbering up for their meetings tonight will be well aware of what’s going on.
But I move down this list, because there are quite a number of—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Thank you.
GREG O’CONNOR: If I can go to paragraph (d), and I know you’re waiting with anticipation as to what paragraph (d) may do—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): “Anticipation” isn’t the word I’d use.
GREG O’CONNOR: “The alteration of the boundaries of any district or region:”. Now, it would appear that many of these points are joined in one, but, again, you can see the context of this. Again, there are those that have put their names forward—those fine men and women who have put their names forward, whose posters we see around the countryside now, hopefully not too badly disfigured or vandalised. They will all be hoping that, because it’s an expensive thing to do to replace them. But then we go on to paragraph (e)—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Right, that’s the finish—that’s the finish. Now, look, in fairness to the member, just reading out the bits of the bill is not actually genuine debate. So the member either makes some genuine points or sits down: one or the other.
GREG O’CONNOR: Well, Madam Chair, you’ve only got to see this whole point that we’re actually talking about here.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): We’re talking about reorganisation and the changes in the bill, not elections.
GREG O’CONNOR: We are talking about reorganisation, but to be able to reorganise, one has to have the shape, it cannot be—[Time expired]
Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this. Just looking at the opening comments in the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2), it has just reminded me where this bill originally started. Having sat on the Local Government and Environment Committee in the last term considering the original cut of this bill and having the opportunity to look at the changes to it, I do so with a high degree of satisfaction as a former mayor who actually championed some of these issues.
One of the issues that was strongly debated on the back of the amalgamation proposals put in the Wairarapa—which would have seen the Wairarapa swallowed up into a super-city in Wellington—were the conditions or the terms that the Local Government Commission was constituted to run under. Some of the concerns that were raised back there were such things like the way in which a proposal could be put together and find its way into law. One of those things was there was a threshold that only 10 percent of a constituency had to raise a petition or petition in favour of a proposal and it would have to go to referendum.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Can I just ask the member—I’m sorry, you’re the second member to discuss the 10 percent. I can’t find that in—can you direct me to that?
Hon RON MARK: It’s around those—to be fair with you, Madam Chair, I’m scrambling for that precise section myself.
Kieran McAnulty: Schedule 2.
Hon RON MARK: Schedule 2, which we’re not on, so I’ll have to come back. Thank you.
It’s the conditions which are contained in Part 1 around the directions that the Minister of Local Government gives to the commission, I guess, that have drawn my attention. In the past, the commission was a body to itself. If I go into looking at new section 31A, set out in clause 16, “Minister’s expectations of Commission in relation to local government reorganisation”—the area of my interest, because, in the past, the commission was able to put up proposals and ignore proposals, if it deemed it appropriate to itself, put up by the local populace. This new piece of legislation amended from its original, states in new section 31A(1), “The Minister may, by notice in writing to the Commission, specify expectations relating to the Commission’s performance of its functions and exercise of its powers under Schedule 3.”
It was the way in which the commission performed its functions that became a debating point in the Wairarapa. The fact that the commission could rule out a proposal put up by the constituents, by the Wairarapa, a combined proposal agreed to by all three councils and supported by 87 percent of the population, was arbitrarily ruled out by the commission in favour of a Greater Wellington Regional Council proposal to create a super-city. We felt at that stage, and I still feel to this very day, that that was undemocratic and that the legislation needed to be more specific around the Minister’s expectations relating to how the commission did its work. And, actually, one of the things that loomed out of those debates was when I started questioning the commission’s own performance—actually, how it spent its money, how it accounted for that, how it made its decisions about how it would assess a proposal put up—we found that actually we were stonewalled. There was no requirement for the commission to explain itself to us.
So I’m hopeful that within—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Come back to the bill.
Hon RON MARK: —new section 31A, inserted by clause 16, subsection (1), that the ability of the Minister to actually give notice to the commission, requiring them to specify expectations related to how they should perform their functions and the performance and exercise of their powers—I’m hopeful that this will be a positive change and give some assurance to Local Government New Zealand that the commission is now working in a more functional manner. New subsection (1A) goes on to say that “The Minister must state in the notice the Minister’s objectives”—and this is great, because we’re hearing the “Minister’s objectives” in respect to the expectations—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’m sorry.
Hon RON MARK: Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): My understanding of the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 323 is that that’s ruled out; it’s taken out. That’s what the SOP does. I’m looking at page 19.
Hon RON MARK: Oh correction, yep. Thank you. I’m looking at page 20. I’m looking at page 20, new section 31A(1), (1A), and (2), which are all in. The parts that are ruled out are section 27(a) and if you drop down to the bottom of page 19, we’re talking of—oh, no, it’s 25 to 35, and the rule-out is (6)(a), (6)(b) in my reading, because it’s got big lines through them.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Are you on the bill or the SOP?
Hon RON MARK: I’m on the bill.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Right. Well, the SOP takes all of that out.
Hon RON MARK: Oh well, I’ll be able to look at that now. I think, in a nutshell, what we’ve got—I’ve run out of time. But—right, so—thank you, Madam Chair. I guess what we saw under that was—crikey, this is getting hard isn’t it?—there was a fear that the past Minister of Local Government used his powers to direct—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Her powers.
Hon RON MARK: Her? Well, actually, it first came to light when the Hon Nick Smith was the Minister of Local Government, and then—was it you, Madam Chair, who did those dastardly things that we objected—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): We did that bill.
Hon RON MARK: —to so violently? But I guess what we’re talking about in there was the ability of the commission to be—we would say, as mayors at the time—manipulated by the intentions of the Government of the day, as opposed to having the commission impartially, dispassionately look at proposals put up by the truly democratically elected leaders of those districts.
And I guess if we’re getting back into that space, we’re back into a good location. The fundamental principle being that the Act should represent localism and that the Act should represent, if anything, a stronger leaning towards the desires and wishes of the constituents of the districts directly concerned, which also raises, again, one of the other old chestnuts where there were high levels of dissatisfaction being expressed by constituents and ratepayers, and that was CCOs—council-controlled organisations—and the way in which the previous legislation allowed them to be established and the way in which the democratic right of oversight was disconnected from ratepayers.
I guess people looked at the super-city, Auckland, and their fears were that that model would be transported in and inflicted upon them in their districts, particularly where super-city proposals were being put up. The fact that the ratepayers could spend all that money purchasing that infrastructure and building it, and that the whole lot of it, lock, stock, and barrel, would be handed over to a CCO, a board of directors, a corporatised entity that determined its own strategic plan and had no obligation whatsoever to go back to the ratepayers for their input, to consider their concerns was an abomination to most of us in local government, and something that needed to be corrected.
I really congratulate Local Government New Zealand and the New Zealand Society of Local Government Managers for their concerted representations, and I congratulate the Minister for the amendments to the bill, which see those errors corrected through the SOP.
You know, Part 1 is lengthy. I could spend a lot of time here, as I refresh myself on this part and wade through here, talking about the issues that long vexed Local Government New Zealand. Part 1 is a substantial part of the bill. I see Part 2 is only very, very small. The SOP is quite large. The SOP reflects the fact that there was a high level of dissatisfaction with the original draft of the bill put forward by the last Government, and the SOP seeks to redress those concerns, in bulk.
I’m very proud of the fact that Minister Mahuta has listened so studiously to the representations made, and the Local Government and Environment Committee for seeing those through. In fact, it’s really interesting looking at page 55 and going through the amount of the bill—this bill is a total transformation from what first originally appeared at select committee. The select committee has done an absolute sterling job on Part 1. Those concerns around CCOs, those concerns around the Local Government Commission—how it operates and how it will operate in the future—those concerns around ensuring the democratic voice of the local people was actually maintained, protected, and enhanced, where possible; they’ve all been noted and taken on board. I know that members like Lawrence Yule, who was a superb mayor, and others in this House who’ve done their time in local government cannot possibly disagree with this bill, and I’m looking forward to seeing the Opposition recognise that and vote in support of every part of this bill as it makes its way through legislation. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I’d like to quickly cover off one part of Part 1 that hasn’t been spoken to in much detail, and that’s in terms of the role of the Local Government Commission (LGC) in terms of government reorganisation. We all know this is an incredibly sensitive area in some parts of the country, with the question of amalgamation hanging over the heads of some regions. There have been some really big concerns around councils losing their autonomy or not being able to have control over the areas they want.
So what the Supplementary Order Paper does is it changes, in terms of the first stage of that reform programme and the local government—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): We have had quite a lot of debate on this, so the member is at risk of being repetitive.
GINNY ANDERSEN: Sorry, Madam Chair, I hadn’t spoken on this yet—but, sure.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): We’ve had an hour and a half already on this. You may not have spoken on it, but others have.
GINNY ANDERSEN: OK. Right. I’ll get to the point. Sure.
The current framework for local government reorganisation is not fit for purpose, and this is really enabling—particularly, I’d note, between 2012 and 2016, five large-scale reorganisations were proposed, and they did not proceed, because of the real lack of community support. And these were costly and divisive, and they also were very much opposed locally and caused a lot of concern. So in terms of what this proposal undertakes, it removes that threat of amalgamation by constraining the LGC’s role in large-scale reorganisations, and I commend that. This is done by simply removing the ability of the individual to request reorganisation investigations and also by restoring the requirement for support of those electors. Removing the enhanced powers of the LGC and the accountability measures of the central government will also have an impact in the sense of enabling a reduction of the number of commissioners, and that should be a reduced workload in that space.
So that was the only other point that I wanted to cover off for Part 1 of the bill. It covers off the two key areas which are the council-controlled organisation and also the LGC in local government reorganisation. So thank you, Madam Chair.
SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): 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.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I do warn members we’ve now had over 20 calls on this part and we are starting to be much, much more repetitive. So I will be tough and you will stick to the topic.
MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Madam Chair, thank you for your guidance on that matter. This has been a very informative debate, but I do just think at this point Government members do want to just touch on a couple of final points in terms of the very important parts of this part of the bill.
The area that I want to focus on in a bit of detail is the sections relating to the Local Government Commission, and I think it’s important we don’t overlook the importance of this section and some of the particular changes which are proposed through the bill, which have been reported back by the Local Government and Environment Committee as well. The importance of the section is, in fact, the quasi-constitutional nature of it. It’s something that we often overlook in this House, actually. We get very focused on the functions of central government and forget that actually built into our democratic decision-making frame is local government.
The role of the Local Government Commission is to make incredibly important decisions about how our decision-making powers are allocated, by making decisions about who will be represented by which authorities, so getting the processes around this correct are absolutely important. What comes through in these parts of the bill—really modernisation features in terms of the function of the Local Government Commission. It’s being modernised and there’s also a greater degree of transparency that comes through, and there’s just a few points in this respect that I wish to touch upon.
The first focus is on the accountability and reporting framework, and to me this is really critical. We simply cannot have an organisation like the Local Government Commission that touches upon the democratic fabric of our country and there being any level of opaqueness about what its focus is, how it makes the decisions that it makes, and the factors that it has to consider—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Which part are you speaking to? Which piece are you speaking to?
MICHAEL WOOD: To Part 1 of the bill.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yeah, yeah, but which clause?
MICHAEL WOOD: I’m speaking to clause 16.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Clause 16A in the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)?
MICHAEL WOOD: Yes. So the Local Government Commission—sorry, clause 17, I’m speaking to. I correct myself because I was focusing on the accountability and reporting framework, in particular. That to me is incredibly important, and this is about having a function in the bill which actually sets out how the commission will work.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, I’m sorry. Look, I’m sorry to be pedantic, but I’m looking at clause 17, which is crossed out in the SOP. All right—the whole page is crossed out.
MICHAEL WOOD: That’s fine, Madam Chair. I’ll move on. Let me speak about the membership of the commission—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Good. Thank you.
MICHAEL WOOD: —which is also captured in this part of the bill as well. The membership of the commission, of course, is incredibly important, and what we know in this bill is that we’ve got a couple of things happening. One, we’ve got greater flexibility in respect of the membership, which is being implemented by the bill. But the select committee has received, I think, a good range of submissions in this area—
Simeon Brown: How many? Name the number.
MICHAEL WOOD: Oh, a very, very good number of submissions were received, Mr Brown. I just want to acknowledge the member who is interjecting over there as a former local government member.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): There’s no need to. There’s no need to; just focus on the bill.
MICHAEL WOOD: Thank you, Madam Chair. The membership of the commission is incredibly important, and what the select committee heard were very good submissions, particularly from the Society of Local Government Managers, about the importance of having genuine expertise from the local government management side represented on the commission.
I think what the select committee has done in its report back here is to strike a really good balance in terms of recommending that in clause 18, one member of the commission either has to be an elected member or has to be a chief executive. This is about making sure that we have direct, practical knowledge of how local government actually operates on the commission—that we are making these incredibly important decisions. I’m a former local government member, and I acknowledge the Chair and others in the Chamber are, and there is actually nothing quite like having the knowledge about the functions of local government about—particularly, I’m thinking about the decisions that are made by the commission around representation. Whether it’s numbers, whether it’s boundaries, whether it’s an amalgamation question—actually having an understanding of issues such as communities of interest are enormously important in local government. Elected members in local government have that understanding, and what you get from chief executives is a far more detailed understanding of how local government functions actually work on the ground. So I think it was a very good decision of the select committee to ensure that we had one of those two types of people on the commission.
Look, I could go on, but I’ll leave it there and commend this part of the bill to the committee.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I sense, Madam Chair, your expert listening of the debate, so without straying into areas that are not a part of Part 1, I will just speak specifically to matters that were raised in relation to the role of the Local Government Commission (LGC) and some of the frustrations that were highlighted by the Hon Ron Mark in regards to the current remit of the Local Government Commission and what Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 323 proposes to do. In fact, I did mention in the previous debate that one of the greatest frustrations in terms of the role of the Local Government Commission was that on the matter of amalgamations and reorganisation, there was only really one outcome. And if the Local Government Commission were empowered to deliver a different outcome that was lesser than an amalgamation, in fact, the legislation didn’t permit it. So while there could have been an appetite to transfer functions or aggregate certain functions across councils, again that wasn’t in the current remit of the LGC, and it caused quite a lot of frustration.
But coming back to the role of the Local Government Commission and some of the comments that were highlighted by the member Michael Wood, in terms of the membership of the commission, he was right to point out that the reason why we’ve enabled either one or three members to be, I guess, appointed to the commission is relative to the workload. As I said previously, what is set out in this SOP is stage one of refocusing the role of the commission. There is more work under way, but it’s not the time now to outline in the committee what the future role and function of the LGC will be. But we should learn from the limitations of the current remit of the LGC and enable actually greater leadership for the LGC to work with councils on how they might share some of their functions in a more strategic way.
I want to highlight also in terms of the issues around council-controlled organisations (CCOs), and that is specifically in relation to some of the specifications around clauses 21B and 21C. That’s in relation to the appointment of directors. We believe, in this day and age, it is important for CCOs to consider whether knowledge of tikanga Māori may be relevant to the governance of that CCO. In particular, for commercial CCOs and in areas where Treaty settlements have been reached, it makes sense to ensure that CCOs are aware of the various arrangements but, more importantly, some of the peculiarities or the unique circumstances that relate to areas under which CCOs might have decision-making powers. The CCOs that immediately come to mind in Auckland are both Watercare and also Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development. This, I think, reinforces in a positive way what the opportunity could be.
Also, the point around alignment—there is the intention to align CCO processes with planning processes of a council, and so you’ll see further through the bill the opportunity to achieve that particular alignment, through the statement of intent.
Can I just highlight—because, again, what we are doing is amending a bill that this Government inherited from the previous Government. We are trying to retain aspects of the Local Government Commission that are absolutely important. We’re trying to improve the areas relating to CCOs that will breathe greater accountability and transparency into the processes, but also accountability in relation to the community that they serve and the interests of their shareholders, which, by and large, are councils. I appreciate all the comments that have been made on Part 1 of the bill and all the probing questions, and look forward to moving through the bill.
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 323 in the name of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta to Part 1 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments 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.
Amendments agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended 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 as amended agreed to.
Part 2 Amendments to other enactments
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Economic Development): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to just make a couple of comments about the provision in Part 2—I think it’s one of the Schedules. I haven’t got it in front of me, but it reinstates a former provision in the legislation that allowed local government entities to delegate administration of public transport services in those regions.
Nicola Willis: When are you going to fix our buses?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: That’s a very good question, actually, which does relate to this provision. The former Government—the former National Government—by mistake and inadvertently, changed the law and actually abolished the ability of local government authorities to delegate public transport services. It is, in fact, a useful provision. It is a useful provision to have in the law, and a number of councils have petitioned our Government asking that this enabling provision be reinstated into the law. In fact, the mayor of Christchurch, Lianne Dalziel, has specifically lobbied our Government asking for the mistake that the National Government made in repealing this provision to be reversed, reinstating the ability of councils, for instance, to come to an arrangement. It might be the case—and I don’t want to speak for the local authorities in Canterbury—that Environment Canterbury might choose to delegate public transport responsibilities and powers to Christchurch City Council.
Councils in Wellington—in fact, Wellington City Council has asked for this provision to be reinstated in the legislation after it was inadvertently repealed by the former National Government, because Wellington City Council would like to have a conversation about the future of public transport services in Wellington. I think, if I’m not incorrect, Wellington City Council was of the view that it would like to manage public transport services in Wellington, because it thinks it can do a better job than Greater Wellington Regional Council.
Nicola Willis: You can do that right now.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Other councils—it’s not possible to do it right now. There is no ability under the law currently—
Michael Wood: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. A member opposite is consistently using the pronoun of “you” in interjections in a way that is directly aimed at the member who is on his feet speaking. I believe that is out of order, including being out of order with the Speaker’s most recent interpretation of that matter.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Thank you, but that is entirely the judgment of the Chair.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Thank you, Mr Chair.
I really just want to make the comment that it’s a good thing for councils to have the flexibility to be able to come to an arrangement at a regional level as to which of the councils—whether it’s a regional council or a city council or potentially even a district council, to come to an arrangement as to which one of those local government entities—should have the responsibility for managing public transport services in a region. The power used to be there in the law. It was inadvertently repealed. This is a pretty useful and straightforward insertion of that enabling power back into the legislation, and at least several metropolitan councils around the country will be very grateful for this provision in this bill. I invite the Minister to make any comment that she would like to about her thinking in including this provision in the bill.
JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity to just take a brief call on Part 2. I specifically want to talk about Schedule 3, Part 2, where it talks about the application to the commission—so page 92. Before subpart 2, insert the following: “(b) a report from each affected local authority, adopted by that local authority, that records—”, and in subparagraph (ii) it says—
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry, are you on Schedule—which one?
JAMIE STRANGE: Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 323, page 92, “New subpart 1B of Part 2.”
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): OK—I thought you said you were on Schedule 3, which would be out of order.
JAMIE STRANGE: Sorry, Mr Chair—Schedule 2. The point I’d like to raise there is that the SOP states that “(ii) the public consultation undertaken by that local authority;” and then also what also needs to be presented to the commission are “(iii) the themes and outcomes of that consultation.”
So what we have here is a group of local authorities submitting to the commission the public consultation they’ve undertaken. My question to the Minister is if she could please elaborate around what type of public consultation needs to be presented to the commission. Is there flexibility for those organisations, first of all, to choose what type of consultation—whether that’s meetings, online submissions, or whether that’s a range of consultation? Also, do they need to submit every aspect of consultation? So, for example, say if hypothetically they had 200 people submit, do they submit all 200 submissions to the commission or do they give the commission a broad range of that consultation?
So the first question is what type of consultation—the stipulation there—and the second one is: does the local authority need agreement from the residents unanimously, or is there a percentage, something like 90 percent of those who submit being in favour? Is that enough for it to be accepted, 95 percent? Is there any sort of stipulation there on those local councils who are submitting to the commission around the level of agreement they need when they undertake the consultation?
I’ll leave my questions there for the Minister on Part 2. Part 2 is a short part, so we don’t need to talk too long about it. As a Government, we’re certainly very keen to pass this piece of legislation. The local councils have been looking forward to this, and I’d just like to leave a couple of those questions there with the Minister. Thank you.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Part 2 is a very small part. There are some minor changes. The transfer of transport functions between territorial authorities and regional councils is enabled by Supplementary Order Paper 323, and it’s done through consequential amendments to the Land Transport Management Act 2003, the Land Transport Act 1998, and the Local Government Act 1974.
I just want to confirm the statements made by my colleague the Hon Phil Twyford that there is no existing provision to enable the transfer of responsibilities between regional council and territorial authorities. So in terms of the interjection that was made by a member of the Opposition, I just want to give that confirmation because in Hamilton too the debate did ensue around the aspiration of the city council to lead on transport functions and not regional council, but the provision wasn’t available—unless, of course, what that member was referring to was that ministerial power should be used to make that decision. We don’t think that’s a way forward, and, actually, a simple amendment such as this—the one that we’re proposing—will enable those conversations to take place within a region as to who is best placed to make these types of decisions.
The reason for the conversation in Hamilton was around, actually, services out further afield to districts like Raglan, and there was a sense that the trade-offs in communities like Raglan needed to be better factored in in the development of a public transport framework. There were tensions between the city and the regional council about who could best provide the reliability of a service and also ensure that Hamilton City was well catered for once people got into the city.
Can I say that that’s a local debate. What we’re trying to do is not answer those questions, however they may occur across cities and regions; we’re just enabling not only for the conversation to be had but some actions and decisions to be taken to enable the transfer of certain arrangements between regional councils and territorial authorities. That’s the reason why we’ve introduced this simple amendment in Part 2.
There’s not much more in this particular part. This is fundamental. It’s something, I think, that is practical, and the Minister of Transport certainly agrees. I hope that we can pass it very quickly.
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 323 in the name of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta to Part 2 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments 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.
Amendments agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended 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 as amended agreed to.
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 323 in the name of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta to Schedule 1 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments 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.
Amendments agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 1 as amended 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 1 as amended agreed to.
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 323 in the name of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta to Schedule 2 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments 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.
Amendments agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 2 as amended 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 as amended agreed to.
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 323 in the name of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta to Schedule 3 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments 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.
Amendments agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 3 as amended 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 as amended agreed to.
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 323 in the name of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta to Schedule 4 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments 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.
Amendments agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 4 as amended 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 4 as amended agreed to.
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 323 in the name of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta to Schedule 4A be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments 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.
Amendments agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 4A as amended 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 4A as amended agreed to.
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 323 in the name of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta to Schedule 5 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments 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.
Amendments agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 5 as amended 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 5 as amended agreed to.
House resumed.
The Chairperson reported progress on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2).
Report adopted.
The House adjourned at 5.59 p.m.