Thursday, 16 March 2023

THURSDAY, 16 MARCH 2023

THURSDAY, 16 MARCH 2023

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

GREG O’CONNOR (Deputy Speaker): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility, for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): Today, the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 28 March. On that day, a further emergency cyclone response bill will have its first reading. Other legislation to be considered will include the third readings of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23, Platform Economy, and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2), and the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill. I have given notice to the Business Committee that on Tuesday evening in that week, the Government intends to move urgency to make up some of the time lost when the first sitting week of the year was adjourned due to Cyclone Gabrielle. Various bills will progress through further stages, including the Civil Aviation Bill, the Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill, and, Minister Shaw, the Organic Products and Production Bill.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the Leader of the House for that update, as I’m sure Mr Shaw will as well. Can he advise whether or not the further cyclone recovery bill will be an omnibus bill?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): As the member is aware, the bill is going through its final drafting stages. It will be provided to Opposition parties next week—so during the recess—so, well in advance, and any discussions about that matter could take place then.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): I’d like to thank the Leader of the House for his update. Thank you.

PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. A paper has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Report on unappropriated expenses and capital expenditure for the financial year ended 30 June 2022.

SPEAKER: I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General, entitled The Auditor-General’s strategic intentions to 2028. I also present reports from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, entitled Are we building harder, hotter cities? The vital importance of urban green spaces and Estimate of environmental expenditure 2022/23: Method and results. Those papers are published under the authority of the House.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m not sure whether you are aware that we have in the House the Irish Minister for agriculture, Charlie McConalogue. He’s up there, and I was just wondering whether you had been notified of that.

SPEAKER: That’s the first either myself or the Clerk has heard of that, but we have further business to do, and I’ll deal with that. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Monetary Policy Statement February 2023

report on the Governance and Administration Committee on the Severe Weather Emergency Legislation Bill

report of the Officers of Parliament Committee on the Inquiry into the Appointment of a Deputy Controller and Auditor-General.

SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading, and the Monetary Policy Statement and inquiry are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.

CLERK:

Appropriation (2021/22 Confirmation and Validation) Bill, introduction

Land Transport Management (Regulation of Public Transport) Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Visitors

Ireland—Minister of Agriculture, Food and the Marine

SPEAKER: Members, before I come to oral questions, I’m sure members would like to welcome the honourable Minister of Agriculture, Food and the Marine from the Republic of Ireland.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. RACHEL BROOKING (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Statistics New Zealand reported today that GDP had declined 0.6 percent in the three months to December, following on from the 1.7 percent increase in the previous September quarter. On an annual basis, the economy was 2.2 percent larger than a year ago, and is 6.7 percent bigger than before the start of the pandemic, ahead of most countries with which we compare ourselves. We have said for some time that 2023 will be a challenging year for the New Zealand economy. However, we are well positioned to support New Zealanders dealing with the cost of living and the impact of flooding and cyclones, given our near record low unemployment, rising tourist numbers, and the solid shape of the Government’s books.

Rachel Brooking: How will the Government manage the response to the economic outlook?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The impact of the recent extreme weather is projected to affect activity in the current March quarter, but, after that, the Reserve Bank is forecasting the rebuild will add about 1 percent to GDP over the next couple of years. The Treasury and the Reserve Bank have previously forecasted a period of high inflation that is set to be followed by a shallow recession. In the face of this, we will continue to focus on supporting New Zealanders with cost of living pressures, while carefully and responsibly managing the Government’s finances. We will take a balanced approach that means we invest in public services that New Zealanders need, that we address issues such as climate change, and that we get a sense of fiscal stability. These are challenging times for many New Zealanders, but our economy is resilient and we are building an economy for the long term, to deliver higher-wage jobs and lower emissions.

Rachel Brooking: What reactions has he seen to the report on GDP in the December quarter?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Kiwibank’s economists—and, indeed, actually, ANZ’s as well—have said that the quarterly decline in the December quarter is largely payback from the surprisingly strong growth in the September quarter. But even with “a weak print”, growth over the second half of the year was impressively strong.

Rachel Brooking: What reports has he seen on economic activity in the current quarter?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, activity in the services sector has expanded, with the BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Services Index—or the PSI—at 55.8 in February, up 1.1 points from the previous month, and above the long-term average of 53.6. If we combine the PSI result with the positive Performance of Manufacturing Index (PMI) results I discussed yesterday, the BNZ’s economists said that “the strongly expanding PSI, along with the recovered tone of the PMI, suggests economic activity is growing relatively well in the early stages of this year”.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all of his Ministers?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Nicola Willis: Why does he continue to have confidence in Stuart Nash when he went on the radio to brag about breaching the Cabinet Manual, joked about it when questioned afterwards, and only much later acknowledged that what he did was wrong?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Minister Nash is no longer the Minister of Police. That was a proportionate punishment for the breach of the code of conduct that was undertaken here.

Nicola Willis: Does he stand by his statement yesterday that these actions from Minister Nash amounted to a serious error of judgment, and, if the standard for sacking a Cabinet Minister is higher than that, what is it?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Yes, that is why Minister Nash is no longer the Minister of Police.

Nicola Willis: Does he agree with constitutional law expert Andrew Geddis, who said of Stuart Nash this morning, “I think he breached ministerial standards and … he doesn’t seem to understand what those rules are or why they’re there. … Frankly, I think he’s also ruled himself out as being suitable to be a Minister. I think he probably should be gone from Cabinet altogether.”, and, if not, why not?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Minister Nash does know that this was a serious error of judgment, and he is no longer the Minister of Police as a repercussion of that.

Nicola Willis: Why are this Government’s standards now so low that Ministers of the Crown can keep their warrants even when they make grave errors of judgment that directly break the rules set out for Cabinet?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I reject the premise of that question, and Minister Nash is no longer the Minister of Police, as a consequence of his actions.

Nicola Willis: Doesn’t keeping Minister Nash in Cabinet send a message to his Ministers that they can get away with interfering in police and judicial matters just so long as they aren’t the police Minister?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: No.

Nicola Willis: Doesn’t his response to Ruth Dyson, Steve Maharey, and Stuart Nash’s behaviour show that there is one set of rules for his Labour mates and one set of rules for everyone else?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: No, and these are separate incidents.

Nicola Willis: Has his confidence in the Minister of Finance been compromised by his enthusiasm in signing off multiple wasteful projects for funding in the middle of a cost of living crisis that the Prime Minister has now had to intervene to stop, and how can New Zealanders possibly trust a finance Minister who has been so profligate with the public purse?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I have absolute confidence in the Minister of Finance. We have near record lows of unemployment in this country. Our debt, compared to many other OECD countries, is comparatively lower, exports are up, and tourism is coming back. I have absolute confidence in our Minister of Finance.

Nicola Willis: How can he have confidence in his finance Minister when, after two years of a cost of living crisis, the economy is going backwards, we aren’t paying our way in the world, and he still doesn’t have an economic plan to take New Zealand forward?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: On behalf of the Prime Minister, every assertion that that member just spoke is absolutely wrong. I have every confidence, on behalf of the Prime Minister, in our Minister of Finance.

Nicola Willis: Does this Prime Minister have the lowest standard for Ministers ever?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Absolutely not, and, on behalf of the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister is absolutely confident in his Ministers and is very proud of what has been achieved and is looking forward to achieving much more.

Question No. 3—Climate Change

3. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Minister of Climate Change: Does he stand by all the Government’s policies and actions on climate change?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): I stand by the fact that this Government has done more for climate action than all previous Governments combined. Because of the actions of this Government, more families than ever are enjoying the benefits of low-emission vehicles and their lower maintenance and running costs. The 70 percent increase in the number of electric vehicles that we have seen in our communities since the end of 2021 will save 2 million tonnes of climate pollution from going into the atmosphere. More kids now and in the future will be kept warm at school by clean energy, because of the action that we have taken to rip out dirty old coal boilers. We are on track to take coal out of every school in the country. We have supported 100,000 more families to make their homes warmer and drier with insulation and heat pumps. Thanks to the work of this Government, our low-carbon future is closer within reach than it has ever been before. However, I have never made any secret of the fact that I think that we should be doing more.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can he stand by the Government’s climate policy purge this week when he has already called it “very disappointing”?

Hon JAMES SHAW: I do not have ministerial responsibility for those programmes or those decisions.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can he be effective in his delegated responsibility of overall climate change policy direction as climate Minister, when he has admitted that he didn’t have a decision-making role in this week’s climate policy purge and wasn’t even consulted before the decisions were made?

Hon JAMES SHAW: I exercise my responsibilities through the emissions reduction plan, which we passed last year. It’s the first all-of-Government plan that this country has ever had.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why does he join protests against his and his own Government’s failure to act on climate change?

Hon JAMES SHAW: I think it’s incredibly important to support young people—and, in fact, all New Zealanders—to hold this Government, and all Governments, and this Parliament to account for what has been a historical failure to act on climate change.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will he stand down from his role and stop “greenwashing” the Government’s weak climate record, given he clearly does not have the influence to ensure the Government acts urgently on climate change; if not, why not?

Hon JAMES SHAW: There is a saying that the whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. So, to answer the member’s question, I think about it every single day, several times a day, and every day I come to the same conclusion: the climate crisis is too far gone to quit, and I am not a quitter.

Question No. 4—Transport

4. SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made about improving public transport in Christchurch?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Last week, I was very pleased to announce that the Government is making a major investment of $78 million to accelerate the Greater Christchurch Public Transport (PT) Futures bus improvements programme. The programme, delivered in partnership with Environment Canterbury, will deliver more bus shelters, more real-time display units, and more bus lanes. This means that the Greater Christchurch community will soon have access to more frequent and reliable transport services, reducing household expenses, carbon dioxide emissions, and encouraging more people to use public transport for their daily travel. Everyone in Christchurch will benefit from this investment, which reflects the Government’s commitment to a low-carbon transport system and making it cheaper, easier, and more attractive for Kiwis to use public transport.

Sarah Pallett: What benefits for public transport users will the investment in the Public Transport Futures programme deliver?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: We know that the Greater Christchurch area will see an increase in annual public transport trips by about 3.5 million people by around 2030. Our Government’s investment to help the PT Futures project will deliver 100 more buses, providing a greater number of seats to a greater number of locations at a higher frequency; over 470 more bus shelters to support a more enjoyable travel experience; almost 200 real-time display units, providing accurate information on bus arrival times; and 22 kilometres of bus lanes, improving bus reliability. Our investment means that these improvements will now be delivered over a five- to six-year period, which is around half of the time that was originally planned by Greater Christchurch.

Sarah Pallett: How will the investment in the Public Transport Futures programme support the Government’s efforts to decarbonise the transport system?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Improving the frequency and reliability of public transport is a key part of our efforts to reduce the transport sector’s carbon emissions. This investment will support a reduction in emissions of around about 20,600 tonnes of carbon dioxide through to 2030, and more beyond. This comes on top of the investments that we’ve made to decarbonise the transport system through programmes like the Clean Car Discount, the Clean Car Standard, the Transport Choices programme, the New Zealand Upgrade, and the soon-to-be-heard-in-this-House legislation to bring in the Sustainable Public Transport Framework to replace the Public Transport Operating Model, which has held back our public transport system for so many years.

Sarah Pallett: What other investments is the Government making in public transport infrastructure in our major cities?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: In Christchurch, the New Zealand Upgrade Programme has provided $35 million of investment for public transport improvements on State Highway 75 Halswell Road, we’re delivering further public transport improvements via the Transport Choices programme, and we’re currently engaging with Christchurch residents and local government about delivering mass rapid transit for Christchurch as well. In regional New Zealand, public transport improvements are currently rolling out in Timaru; with a new bus programme to also roll out in Nelson in the coming months; and in Auckland, we’re making major investments into the Eastern Busway as part of our work to deliver a linked-up rapid transit system to our biggest city.

Question No. 5—Education

5. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Education: What improvement, if any, has there been in achievement levels for year 8 students since 2017 according to e-asTTle data, and is she satisfied with the level of improvement in student achievement over the last five years?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): To the first part of the question, year 8 progress has remained constant over this period, meaning no significant change has been shown and the pattern is consistent with natural cohort variance. To the second part of the question, I have said a number of times that student achievement in maths in particular needs to improve, which is exactly why we are rewriting the curriculum, to ensure it is clear what students need to know, and no learning is left to chance. The new maths curriculum will be available for teaching this year, and the common practice model will be in place from 2024.

Erica Stanford: Is she seriously saying that, after almost six years of her Government in charge of the education system, the only thing that she can point to is a strategy document and a new curriculum that doesn’t come into place until next year, and the other one is still out for consultation?

Hon JAN TINETTI: No.

Erica Stanford: Why is it, then, after five years of her Government, that the Ministry of Education today in select committee were telling us that there was no improvement in the achievement of our year 8 students in reading, writing, and maths, according to e-asTTle assessment data?

Hon JAN TINETTI: As the member and I discussed at the Education and Workforce Committee this morning, the primary purpose of e-asTTle is to support teachers in their teaching for formative assessment, not summative assessment. This needs to be taken into account when looking at the aggregated results, as these can vary over time depending on the nature of the assessment that has been undertaken. There is no evidence of significant change in year 8 e-asTTle results since 2017. Results can be affected by the mix of students being assessed, the nature of the assessment, formative versus summative—as I said—the timing of the assessment, and the specific strands being assessed.

Erica Stanford: Why is it that, in five years of her Government, our year 8 students—of which 45 percent are at curriculum for math and 35 percent for writing—are no better off than they were in 2017?

Hon JAN TINETTI: As I said this morning to the member, you can’t make that judgment from the e-asTTle data; the e-asTTle data is not to be used in that particular way. It is not a representative sample, but purely schools that choose to use it use it—so it’s not nationally representative. National Monitoring Study of Student Achievement (NMSSA) is designed specifically for the New Zealand Curriculum and uses teachers throughout the process of creating, implementing, and marking the student assessment. That captures the data that we need to see. The last data that we collected on maths—in 2013 and 2018—were 41 and 45 percent of year 8 students were at expected curriculum level respectively. Later in 2023, we will report mathematics and statistics again.

Erica Stanford: According to her answer to the primary question—when she said that year 8 student achievement is constant; there hasn’t been any significant change—can she explain why that is after five long years of her Government looking after our education department?

Hon JAN TINETTI: That’s exactly what I did say before: the e-asTTle data is not something that is used for summative assessment in that particular way. We don’t make judgments around what is happening on the national level; we wait for the NMSSA results to come out to make that judgment.

Erica Stanford: Can she justify to this House, right now, how she has spent $22 million on 22 ministry leadership advisors when support isn’t getting into our classrooms to raise achievement—in five years?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Yes, we have spent that money because that is what the sector asked us to spend that money on.

Question No. 6—Trade and Export Growth

6. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: How is the Government progressing New Zealand’s Trade Recovery Strategy?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): Trade is a major priority for this Government. We know that trade grows businesses, creates jobs, and boosts the economy. Our Trade Recovery Strategy is focused on promoting sustainable and inclusive trade, lifting our exporters’ capability and performance in key markets, strengthening international and regional trade architecture, and building resilience against future shocks. In July, New Zealand will welcome delegations from 10 Asia-Pacific economies to Auckland to host the annual Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership—

Hon David Parker: CPTPP.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —CPTPP; thank you, Mr Parker for that name—at the commission meeting here in New Zealand. This will be the biggest international meeting we have hosted since the pandemic, and an opportunity to build our trade agenda and continue to open doors for Kiwi businesses and the people and the households that they support.

Marja Lubeck: What’s the importance of CPTPP for our trade strategy?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: CPTPP is the world’s leading open plurilateral free-trade agreement (FTA), one of our four FTAs that this Government has secured—thanks to the EU for their commitment. The CPTPP economies represent around $18 trillion in global change and a market of 480 million people. The agreement reflects this Government’s commitment to a rules-based trading system with a diversified range of partners, and it means that we have closer strategic partnerships and relationships in the region to ensure we have resilience against shocks like supply chain disruptions and geopolitical tensions.

Marja Lubeck: How does CPTPP benefit our businesses?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: As I said, CPTPP economies are one of our largest trading blocs, and our membership means that Kiwi businesses get a better deal when accessing those opportunities. In just the first two years, Kiwi businesses have saved over $300 million in tariffs. For example, there’s an average reduction of $50,000 a year in tariffs for each of our squash growers exporting to Japan, and major exports like kiwifruit and wines saw all tariffs eliminated immediately. With two-thirds of companies who export to CPTPP markets being small to medium sized enterprises, these savings make a significant difference to those businesses and the jobs and families that they support.

Marja Lubeck: How does this fit with our other trade agreements?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: More good news: we know that one in four New Zealanders’ jobs depends upon trade. This is why Government is committed to diversifying our trade interests and opening as many doors as we can for our exporters. Since 2017, this Government has secured four new free-trade agreements and upgraded three more. Once all these agreements enter into force, FTA coverage of goods exports will jump from around 57 percent in 2017 to now 77 percent of our total exports. In fact, in just one of those FTAs alone—the UK FTA—it will boost our GDP by up to $1 billion and immediately remove tariffs on 99.5 percent of current trade. That is what the Government is delivering for our exporters.

Hon Todd McClay: Is it also part of his Government’s Trade Recovery Strategy that a trade deal with India is no longer a priority for New Zealand, as announced at a press conference in Auckland by Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta in October last year, and did she consult with him about this announcement before making it?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I can say that building relationships with India is very, very important. Can I say that the Minister herself has visited India. I have been there. We’ll continue to build the relationships. The reality is that dairy, in particular, is a particular challenge for our relationship, but in all other areas of commerce and trade, we continue to expand and grow the relationship with India, and I’m sure, one day in the near future, we will have a free-trade agreement.

Question No. 7—Police

7. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: How many ram raids were there in 2018, and what is the percentage increase from 2018 to 2022?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Acting Minister of Police): Police advise me that the data shows there were 88 incidents of ram raids on retail premises, and 48 incidents of ram raids on commercial premises in 2018. Therefore, a total of 136 ram raids were recorded on either retail or commercial premises by Police in 2018. In 2022, there were 662 incidents of ram raids on retail premises, and 224 incidents of ram raids on commercial premises. This is a total of 886 ram raids recorded on either retail or commercial premises by Police in 2022. The percentage increase from 2018 to 2022, considering both retail and commercial premises, is 551 percent. This total represents an increase on those provided in the House in 2022, due to the inclusion of ram raids on both commercial premises in the ram raid statistics. Previously, ram raids were only reported on retail premises. Commercial premises were added in January this year to capture the increasing number of ram raids that were occurring in premises deemed “commercial” in the Police system, including jewellers and big-box commercial stores.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Does she agree with the Prime Minister, who said that there was a 75 percent reduction in ram raids?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: This has been acknowledged by the Police that there was an issue with the data that was provided to the then Minister of Police. One of the issues was that in January, commercial was added to retail, and that was a change. I have asked Police to quickly prepare a note so that the Government can be sure that we can have confidence in the veracity of data on which we are making policy decisions.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Well, should the Prime Minister return to the House and correct his answer to the House saying that there’d been a 75 percent reduction in ram raids?

Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister doesn’t have any responsibility for the Prime Minister in that regard.

SPEAKER: No ministerial responsibility.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Can she confirm that, previously, the Government claimed that there were 524 ram raids in 2022, when there were actually over 880—an increase of 70 percent?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I explained in the answer to my primary question the difference between the retail and the commercial numbers, and that fact that that only started being reported in January of this year. I can’t confirm the actual numbers the member is talking about, because I don’t have them in front of me, but if you would like to put that question in writing, I would be happy to do so. But I do point the member to the fact that Police have acknowledged that there had been an issue with the data, and they are looking through any answers to see if they need to be corrected, particularly in the written parliamentary questions system.

Hon Mark Mitchell: When will the Government accept that it has failed to keep New Zealanders safe in their communities, with a ram raid now occurring once every 10 hours?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’ll point the member to a different data set, and that is the number of ram raids that are occurring by month. We saw a peak of ram raids of 116 occurring in August 2022, then we see what the evidence shows us, and that is the effectiveness of the Government policies that are coming into effect. So we can then look at the evidence. In February 2023: a fall from 116 ram raids to 40 ram raids. We can also look to the number of prosecutions and interventions that have happened with those carrying out these criminal offences.

Hon Mark Mitchell: So with the Minister having just told the House that they’re not confident in the data being produced by the Police to them, can she tell us that the total for February this year has been completed and that all ram raids have been captured?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: That is the number I have been provided by Police before I came down to the House. I explicitly asked whether I could have confidence in that number, and I was assured by Police I could.

Question No. 8—Revenue

8. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister of Revenue: How is the Government supporting emissions reductions in transport through the tax system?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): The Government is exempting public transport from fringe benefit tax from the 2023-24 year onwards. The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23 Platform Economy, and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2), currently before the House, exempts public transport from fringe benefit tax (FBT) where fares are subsidised by an employer and the fares are mainly for their employees to travel between home and their place of work. Many employers already subsidise the commuting costs of their staff—for example, paying for employer-provided car parks. The Government believes a more neutral FBT outcome is achieved by including the option of more environmentally friendly modes of public transport. This was a recommendation of the Tax Working Group.

Shanan Halbert: What improvements has the Government made to the bill since it was reported back by select committee?

Hon DAVID PARKER: This week, the Government took up a proposal from the Hon Julie Anne Genter to extend the public transport exemption to allow bicycles, electric bicycles, scooters, electric scooters, and micro-mobility shared services to be exempt from fringe benefit tax where they’re being used for commuting to and from work. The measure will support New Zealand’s shift to more sustainable transport modes and encourage employers to provide further climate-friendly transport options for their staff.

Shanan Halbert: What benefits does the exemption for public transport and bikes from fringe benefit tax provide?

Hon DAVID PARKER: In addition to the monetary benefit for people being exempt from FBT, these exemptions support sustainable methods that reduce emissions and congestion on the roads. It’s a point that Julie Anne Genter has made often. There are also health benefits for people travelling to work by more active methods, and although this is a small change in the grand scheme of things, these sorts of incentives provide valuable transport choices, and everything helps us achieve the changes we want.

Shanan Halbert: How will these changes support businesses and employers?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, they do reduce costs for employers. They now have more options for remuneration of their employees in relation to their transport choices without FBT, and, as I’ve said, these have benefits not just in reducing emissions and cutting congestion but they also improve public health. We have included a regulation-making power to make sure that we don’t have any gold-plated bikes or scooters, so as to ensure that these provisions aren’t misused in the future.

Question No. 9—Health

9. BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Health: Does the Government still have an expectation that 95 percent of patients accepted for a CT scan and 90 percent of patients accepted for an MRI scan should receive their scan within 42 days or less; if so, is it acceptable that between June and December 2022, the national number of patients who received a scan within 42 days or less changed from 63.4 percent to 60.9 percent?

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Associate Minister of Health (Pacific Peoples)) on behalf of the Minister of Health: In answer to the first part of the question, yes. In answer to the second part of the question, no.

Brooke van Velden: Is it acceptable that in Northland the number of patients accepted for a CT scan or MRI who received their scan within 42 days or less decreased from 58.4 percent in June 2022 to 23.8 percent in December 2022?

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: As I acknowledged in the primary question, no, it’s not acceptable. There is no single silver bullet to take the pressure off our wait-lists; we’re going to need to act on a variety of things. I also acknowledge the stress experienced by all patients waiting for care.

Brooke van Velden: Is it acceptable that in Hawke’s Bay, the number of patients accepted for a CT scan or MRI who received their scan in 42 days or less decreased from 68.4 percent in June 2022 to an even lower 35.3 percent in December 2022?

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Again, I acknowledge the stress experienced by patients across the country who have to wait for care. I’ve made my expectations very clear to Te Whatu Ora that improving wait times for care is one of my top priorities. These pressures are being addressed by focusing on how hospitals manage the movement of patients through hospitals by prioritising those who need more urgent care and increasing regional coordination to deliver health services.

Brooke van Velden: Has the Government broken their promise to end the health postcode lottery, considering that in December last year in Waitematā, 90 percent of patients received their MRI or CT scan within the expected time frame, but just across the border in Northland, this figure was just 23 percent?

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: No.

Question No. 10—Education

10. PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Education: What was the total expenditure, if any, on the Te Pūkenga style guide, and does she have confidence in Te Pūkenga’s overall financial performance?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): To the first part of the question, I’m advised that the style guide for Te Pūkenga was developed internally by staff, and no additional expenditure was spent. To the second part of the question, there is no doubt that Te Pūkenga is facing some financial pressures, but I have confidence that a sound plan is in place to navigate the new entity towards financial stability.

Penny Simmonds: Is it consistent with the principles of academic freedom enshrined in law that Te Pūkenga is limiting the use of—I quote—“big words or technical language”, and does the Minister agree that the words “participate”, “accurate”, “reduce”, and “combined” are big words or technical language?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Look, a style guide wasn’t something that I have actually ever used in my career, but I’m told that many organisations, including many tertiary education organisations, have style guides.

Penny Simmonds: Could the Minister please give us a demonstration of the voice of Te Pūkenga that is “brave, bold, and open to new possibilities, a daring kind of energy and authentically human”, as described in the Te Pūkenga guide?

Hon JAN TINETTI: No.

Penny Simmonds: Has Cabinet considered halting the Te Pūkenga reforms as part of the Government’s reprioritisations, or has she just inherited a hospital pass of a woefully woke and financially failing Te Pūkenga that Chris Hipkins is forcing her to persist with?

Hon JAN TINETTI: No.

Question No. 11—Small Business

11. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister for Small Business: What recent announcements has the Government made about supporting small business in cyclone-affected regions?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister for Small Business): Yesterday, the Minister for Cyclone Recovery announced a $25 million extension for cyclone-affected businesses, on top of the original $25 million allocated. These grants are intended to help more small businesses in cyclone-affected regions with the clean-up and to get them back up and running. This announcement adds to the $55 million in support that is already going out to our farmers and growers, and a new Recovery Visa is also in place to help bring more workers in with the recovery.

Ingrid Leary: How will this investment support small businesses, and what support has already been provided?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: We are committed to helping people and businesses recover from Cyclone Gabrielle, and we are working closely to monitor the needs of those local communities. It is vital that we work with local agencies, iwi, and councils as those regions move from recovery to rebuilding from these extreme weather events. The uptake of grants to date has been strong. For example, in Te Tai Rāwhiti, 372 applications for support have been approved, with $4.1 million paid out to those small businesses. In Hawke’s Bay, we have seen over 1,200 applications received, and over $2.5 million has been paid out. In Northland, Northland Inc. has received over 640 applications.

Ingrid Leary: What criteria do small businesses need to meet to access this support?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The extension of funding will not change the criteria for the grants but will allow more firms to be supported. The original criteria placed a cap of $40,000 per business and also made some certain requirements: they must be primarily located in the area that’s been impacted by the cyclone and they must have faced significant cash-flow issues due to challenges with customer access, supply chain issues, inability to source stock, inability to operate as usual due to physical damage, or other delays. They also must be otherwise a viable business, both before and after the flooding occurred, and they must commit to acting in line with employment law and with due regard to their employees.

Ingrid Leary: How can small businesses go about accessing this support?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Small businesses can work with the following organisations across New Zealand, which are distributing the funding and helping support our small businesses. I’d like to give thanks to Northland Inc., Auckland Business Chamber, Toi Economic Development Agency, Thames-Coromandel District Council, Trust Tairāwhiti, Hawke’s Bay Chamber of Commerce, Tararua District Council, and Masterton District Council. Supporting local delivery partners to administer these grants has meant we’ve been able to empower regions to determine the shape of their own recovery, and I’m pleased to see this take shape.

Question No. 12—Education

12. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Minister of Education: What advice has she received about why teachers are striking today?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): In the last seven days, I’ve met with both the New Zealand Educational Institute and the Post Primary Teachers’ Association, who have advised me of a variety of challenges they are facing in the sector. At the same time, my officials—who have been at the table with the unions, and who I have confidence are dedicated to reaching a positive resolution—have been relaying information back to me frequently about where negotiations are at. From this, I know today’s strike is not just about remuneration but also a call for better teaching conditions.

Teanau Tuiono: Does she agree that staffing shortages and high workloads in primary and area schools are the result of low wages and poor conditions; if not, what is causing teaching staff shortages?

Hon JAN TINETTI: No, that’s oversimplifying a very complex issue.

Teanau Tuiono: What does she say to secondary school teachers who have had to pick up second jobs, working nights, because their already low wages have not matched inflation?

Hon JAN TINETTI: That’s exactly why we’re in bargaining, in negotiations, at this point in time, and we absolutely hear that our teachers are feeling that pressure at this moment. I’m looking forward to a positive resolution soon.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does the Minister believe that kindergarten teachers should have additional sick leave, that the pay cap for relief teachers should be removed, and that there should be pay recognition of kaiako Māori and head and senior teachers, and, if not, why not?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Those are issues that I cannot actually talk about because they are under negotiations at this point in time. However, I do value the work of kindergarten teachers and I do look forward to a positive resolution to that bargaining soon.

Teanau Tuiono: Does she acknowledge that the Government’s refusal to improve its offer is forcing teachers to strike, which has wide-ranging impacts on parents and families, and, if so, what will she do to ensure that kids are back to school as soon as possible?

Hon JAN TINETTI: No, I do know that positive progress has been made across all of the collective agreements that are being negotiated at this time. And I know that we are working very hard to ensure that minimum disruption will be caused in the future.

Bills

Severe Weather Emergency Legislation Bill

Second Reading

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): Thank you, Mr Speaker. After consultation with the Business Committee, I seek leave to present a legislative statement on the Severe Weather Emergency Legislation Bill.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: I move that the Severe Weather Emergency Legislation Bill be now read a second time. The recent—

SPEAKER: Sorry to interrupt; I missed a piece out. That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Severe Weather Emergency Legislation Bill be now read a second time.

The recent extreme weather events in the North Island have affected the lives of many and have had significant impacts on many communities. They have caused widespread damage to land, waterways, infrastructure, and roading. We need to ensure that the legislative powers needed for response and recovery are available. We also need to ensure that our local authorities and civil defence emergency management groups, including those outside of the affected area, can prepare for and respond to future emergencies.

This bill is intended to make urgent changes to assist councils and communities with the recovery in the areas that have been affected by recent weather events. It will also enable all councils to take immediate action to improve resilience to future weather events. The bill will make urgent direct amendments to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002, the Local Government Act 2002, the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), the Food Act 2014, and Food Regulations 2014, to provide relief to those people who are in communities affected by the severe weather. This will support recovery and provide authorities with the powers necessary to facilitate an efficient, timely, and effective recovery. In particular, the amendments will help local councils with their planning and decision making, allow for concurrent declarations of states of emergency and transition periods, and enable remote attendance at meetings.

I would like to thank the Governance and Administration Committee for considering this bill in a short period of time to ensure that we can get the changes in place to support those who are affected by the severe weather events. Despite the short process, the committee was able to call for submissions from interested parties and received 14 written submissions and 13 oral submissions. I also want to express my thanks for the cross-party support of this bill, and the hard work of officials overnight to get this ready for us today.

The Governance and Administration Committee heard broad support for the amendments to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act and the Local Government Act to allow for meetings to be attended via audio or visual link, and to enable councils to make long-term plan amendments relating to water services. The audio or visual link amendment is particularly useful for people who are unable to attend in person due to the damage to roads and to bridges. Some of our submitters supported this provision being made permanent. This change doesn’t fall into the scope of this bill, but it’s something that I am considering in future.

Some submitters asked for greater consideration of iwi and Māori interests in the bill, particularly around engagement with emergency management processes and upholding the obligations that the Crown has under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I am proposing some changes to the bill to reflect those concerns. I want to acknowledge the work undertaken and the response to date by tangata whenua—the resources that have been organised and the difficult on-the-ground support provided to assist in the response and recovery from these events. Although some of the issues raised are out of scope of the bill, we acknowledge these considerations and they will be addressed in future emergency management legislation.

Submitters were concerned about adverse effects in the coastal marine area, and potential damage or impacts to sites of cultural significance for Māori caused by recovery work. To mitigate this risk, I intend to propose a Supplementary Order Paper to amend the bill so that activities undertaken in coastal marine areas are not permitted, and activities on a culturally significant site can only be undertaken with the prior written consent of local iwi and hapū.

Submitters and the select committee have recommended additional changes to the bill relating to the RMA, to incorporate additional environmental safeguards and also flexibility in certain provisions to reflect the practical realities of those undertaking emergency works and relief activities on the ground.

The changes in Part 4 of the bill enable rural landowners and occupiers to undertake permitted activities to repair or prevent damage on their land. Currently, there aren’t restrictions on these activities going beyond the boundaries of the owner’s or occupier’s land. I propose to amend the bill so that permitted activities could not cause significant adverse effects beyond those boundaries. This is aligned with a similar modification in the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Act. I also propose to amend the bill so that rural urupā, papa kāinga, and marae are included in the areas where permitted activities can be undertaken.

This bill is intended to assist people, their communities, iwi and hapū, and local authorities with the recovery to improve resilience for the areas affected by severe weather events. It also enables all councils to take immediate action to improve resilience to future weather events. We all want the best for these affected communities.

The select committee has identified where there is more work to be done on targeted legislative changes to further enable the recovery. The Government’s intention is to progress these recommendations through further legislation in the coming weeks. This will be using similar tools to those deployed past Hurunui and Kaikōura.

I again want to acknowledge the officials that have worked diligently and advised us well on this bill, despite very tight time frames. They have demonstrated their professionalism and expertise in assisting both Ministers and the select committee. I am grateful for their work to get this bill to where it is, and therefore I am pleased to commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Well, it’s pretty impressive what can be done in the 42 hours since the bill completed its first reading—I think, by my maths, that’s all we’ve had. It feels like a heck of a lot longer ago, and I’m sure that’s the feeling of the members of the Governance and Administration Committee who did some really hard work.

Arena Williams: Hard-working committee.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: And a few others—that’s right, Ms Williams. But I also want to join the Minister in commending and thanking the officials who were looking pretty haggard this morning, I think. They burnt the oil last night. No, that’s not a criticism; actually, it’s a credit to them that they worked so hard—officials, Parliamentary Counsel Office, the Office of the Clerk.

And I think we have achieved our goal. Remember this is not an ideal process, but it is a necessary one in the circumstances, and I think that while it’s not quite the exemplar I’m looking for—for reasons I will explain—we as a House are actually doing the right thing, a pretty good thing, to ensure that the people affected by the weather events have as few barriers and as much support as we can give them from this place. I also want to acknowledge the Hon Eugenie Sage and ACT MP Simon Court, who aren’t permanent members of the committee—nor am I, but I subbed in. They were able to join us as well, and I very much appreciated their contributions, if not always the occasional abrasiveness with which Mr Court made his points. But stepping back from that, there were some rare gems of contribution that, I think, have actually improved the bill when the Supplementary Order Paper does hit the Table—I think it can’t be far away.

I will attempt to summarise what we heard, what we thought about, and what changes have been made that the Minister hasn’t covered. I think listeners will understand the logistics of what we heard and did over the last day or so. There were 96 submitters invited to submit, and the committee received 14 written submissions and heard oral evidence from 13. So there was quite a bit to do yesterday. There were three main areas that I talked about in my first reading speech that I just want to touch on, and I’m sure others will come in from their angle.

I was worried about expiry dates. They were all over the place, and I made a suggestion that perhaps the better way to do this was kind of a reverse “Henry VIII” clause where the bill expires all at once on 1 April 2025 but Ministers would have the power by Order in Council to repeal those changes earlier if it was felt they were no longer necessary. And the reason was that we don’t know what we don’t know, and I was worried that we would need to come back to the House and do this all over again just to simply extend the deadlines. It then dawned on me, after I left at the first reading, that at least one—maybe two or three—of the expiry dates was in October 2023. Now there’s something happening in October 2023.

Chris Penk: Ah, Rugby World Cup.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That’s right. The Rugby World Cup. But it’ll be over by then, I think, Mr Penk. I’m not sure when the final is, but it might be—oh, it is actually on 21 October, so we’re in the middle of that.

Actually, no, we won’t be here, and the House will have adjourned. The 53rd Parliament will have probably been dissolved by then. So there’ll be no way on 1 October—if it was deemed necessary by the Government to actually extend the provisions that expired, then we’d be stuck. So I was pleased to see that there’s no more dates on that. But we have extended some of them, but we didn’t go as far as to put the blanket repeal date further out. I’m still pretty happy with what we’ve done with the dates.

I asked a question in the first reading about whether or not telecommunications companies’ and lines companies’ backhaul—like Chorus—were within the definition of sections 330A and 330B of the RMA: network utility operators, lifeline utilities, and so on. And the answer was yes. So there was no need for change to that. So that’s good. While it’s important for people who are going to use emergency provisions for what would then become a permitted activity to notify their local councils—that’s appropriate—did the punishment fit the crime if they didn’t.

I can just imagine that some people are concentrating far more on the effort rather than the paperwork. And, actually, this was where Simon Court made some very good contributions which I’m sure he’ll elaborate on in respect of the reconciliation between that and the fact that while some activities can be permitted without the normal processes, prohibited activities can’t. He pointed out, quite rightly, that there’s going to be things that are prohibited within the clean-up, and so it might be difficult to separate silt with contamination or a motor body or rubber or whatever it was. And the officials have recommended that the bill be changed to provide a discretion to extend the report date or to provide that that wouldn’t be deemed a prohibited activity. It does rely on the good common sense of our local councils, and I’ll trust them that they know what this place’s intention is—and actually, frankly, they know their communities best, so the last thing they’re going to do is burden them down with bureaucracy at a time when we want to get things going. I’m sure we’ll be OK with that.

The last thing—and it is something of an irritant, but it won’t affect our overall support for the bill—is that I continue to maintain that clause 14 is beyond the scope of this omnibus bill. We’ve had that conversation. We did so again in the committee. For reasons Simon Watts, I’m sure, will elaborate on, we are not going to propose an amendment to the bill, because I think that might misconstrue our motives. They may be misconstrued by councils who actually understand that that change needs to be made. This, just in our view, isn’t the right place to do it. So I think that point’s been made, and I at least won’t say any more about it, but it was, as I say, a bit of an irritant on what has been an otherwise extremely positive process.

We’ve been there. Right from the time the Hon John Carter was appointed Minister of Civil Defence in 2009, there has been a succession of events, disasters, earthquakes—it’s like a poisoned chalice, getting that warrant. I see the Minister nodding sagely. I’m sure he’d rather have it than not, but he’s probably going to have plenty of sleepless nights and the National Emergency Management Agency waking him up from time to time to say, “Minister, there’s this flood, that cyclone, and earthquake,” in whichever part of our beautiful country. That’s just the nature of the role, and I sincerely hope he’s not nearly as busy in the future as he has been in the past. But I’m not quite as confident as I am hopeful. With those words, I look forward to the expeditious passage of this bill into law.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Thank you. I’m pleased to take a call on the Severe Weather Emergency Legislation Bill. This is fast lawmaking. We did receive some submissions from people like Dr John Hopkins of Canterbury University and Associate Professor Dr Dean Knight at Victoria—very concerned about the fast process and the inability to give adequate scrutiny—and a suggestion that in order to deal with emergencies like this, as Dr Hopkins said, we need to legally prepare for such events and stop the “make-do and mend” approach to disaster law that continues to apply in Aotearoa New Zealand.

The Green Party is continuing to support this bill. But, as Mr Woodhouse noted, the 48-odd hours that we’ve had to deal with it has meant, of course, that we’re coming back to this House and the Governance and Administration Committee has not had the time to have a track-changes version of the bill with the recommendations that we are making for changes. Instead, it will be done through a Supplementary Order Paper—and there’s only been a day for submissions. But what the bill highlighted to me once again is the value of public submissions.

Despite only having a day, despite submitters speaking verbally to the committee without a written submission in some instances because they hadn’t had time, the changes that are being recommended that, hopefully, will come through in the Supplementary Order Paper are in response to a lot of the concerns that submitters raised. So it really highlights the dangers of passing legislation where there’s not a public submission process and the benefits when that does happen. So I would really like to thank, particularly, councils like Hawke’s Bay, Gisborne, and Hastings District Council; iwi like Rongowhakaata; and those who made submissions, despite dealing with the horrendous impacts of the cyclones and the adverse weather, and doing this alongside all of their response and recovery work.

One of the particular issues I was interested in, for the Greens, was the Resource Management Act and the wide scope of permitted activities in clause 21, inserting new sections 331A to 331F into the Resource Management Act. Yes, it was modelled on the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Act, but the wide scope it gives for permitted activities to be undertaken on rural land for remedial measures and the large area that has been affected by the cyclone means that this permitted activity status—no need to get a resource consent—will apply over hundreds of thousands of hectares. The committee, as Mr Woodhouse noted, has amended the end date for that from October 2023 to April 2024, partly so that things like earthworks could be done over the summer rather than rural people having to race to get it done in winter and potentially doing it in wet conditions, which could cause even more damage.

But the inquiries we were able to make, and they were limited, was what monitoring had been done of Hurunui/Kaikōura—there’s been an assumption, by me included, that the trust model there actually worked. Given that this area affected is so much larger, I think it is incumbent on the Ministry for the Environment to work alongside, particularly Hastings, Gisborne District Council, and others to do aerial and other monitoring to look at what sort of activities are being done as permitted activities and to just ensure that there aren’t unforeseen adverse effects on rivers, natural areas, and adjoining landowners.

One of the changes that the committee recommended, that the Minister noted, is really significant and that’s that significant adverse effects cannot occur beyond the site boundary. Because with things like moving silt, if it’s moved to maybe the edge of a property, with another rain event then the effects of that are felt downstream—so making it very clear that effects can’t occur beyond the site boundary and also a requirement that adverse effects are avoided, remedied, or mitigated to the best extent practicable. So again, that’s a bit of a safeguard.

This is a very generous provision—it will help with recovery—but we do need agencies to get involved in monitoring. The ACT Party, as I’m sure Mr Court will highlight, wanted this permitted activity status extended beyond rural areas to include residential and commercial areas, but I would just like to note that the Napier City Council has highlighted that in the Awatoto area, for example, there are high levels of contaminants, toxic substances, ammonia, hydrocarbons, and pesticides. People are wearing personal protective equipment in that area and that is not a rural area, and so there are real implications if it was extended beyond rural areas. So I think that’s a real risk.

Then there’s the issue of burning slash, and I didn’t really get an answer to my questions about how this broad-scale permitted activity would affect the issue of forestry slash and what landowners want to do with that. As the Gisborne District Council noted in its submission, the public interest in responsible parties being held to account for any criminal offending that may have led to the impacts of forestry slash is significant, and if companies then seek to use this permitted activity status to burn the slash, there would be horrendous potential health effects on communities from the smoke, particularly if there are pesticides mixed in with that slash, and coated wire.

The Minister has noted that there will be new legislation introduced after the recess that may provide an Order in Council process and a particular consenting pathway for activities like forestry slash. I think it would be entirely inappropriate if there was any attempt to use these permitted activity provisions to deal with forestry slash. There needs to be specific attention to the issues there, the potential effect, and then a consenting pathway worked out that takes those into account.

So Rongowhakaata highlighted too that there have already been instances of contaminated silt being dumped by landowners in waterways, so, again, we really do need to monitor, and because in some areas things like pesticides, treated timber are all mixed up in the debris and the slash, that all needs to be looked at—how are we going to manage that? In the earthquakes, there was a huge pile of treated and other timber at Burwood which was recovered from demolished houses. That was not just burnt; it was separated and dealt with appropriately. Similarly, with the forestry slash, there needs to be much more thought around that.

I’m really pleased that the select committee did what it could, and I acknowledge the very skilled chairing of Ian McKelvie and the very collegial attitude on the committee to respond to submissions from some iwi that there hadn’t been sufficient regard paid to Te Tiriti considerations and the way in which land was used might affect cultural sites, and so the changes that the select committee is suggesting there will actually take more account of the potential for adverse effects and ensure that iwi views are considered.

I look forward to the other legislation dealing with Te Tiriti issues and consultation with iwi, hapū, and mana whenua in more detail and to ensuring that we are really recognising that huge effort that so many marae, so many iwi and hapū on the ground put in to sustain the wider community in the immediate response, and integrating them into the recovery as well.

It is really challenging for the Parliament to deal with lawmaking in such a rapid way, but I really acknowledge the work of submitters and also officials in contributing to this. Thank you.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, this legislation has been rushed into the House, but it’s still late—it’s over four weeks since the state of emergency was declared. The ACT Party will be supporting the legislation. We think that the provisions to extend food licensing for hospitality businesses make sense, we think that the provision to allow councils to have meetings via Zoom makes sense, and we think that the changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA) which allow farmers to get on with some of the clean-up do make sense.

But it’s actually what’s not in the bill that is of greatest concern to the ACT Party. What the Government should have done is declare a special economic zone, in the same ways the Government did in 2010 and 2011 for the Canterbury earthquakes, and in 2016 for the Kaikōura earthquake and all the damage that was done to that part of the country. A special economic zone—as ACT proposes in our 15 Urgent Ideas for Recovery—actually would allow for cutting red tape and overriding the regulation that slows the recovery, because this is not a normal time. This is not a normal situation where you can investigate, plan, design, and obtain consents for things. Hundreds of thousands of tonnes of sediment has come down from the hills; entire parts of forests have come down from the hills. And all of that material—along with the fencing, posts, wire, electrical cable, smashed cars, and entire homes—are all spread out and mixed up into the most awful mess across Hawke’s Bay, Tai Rāwhiti Gisborne, and other places around the country. So a special economic zone would allow for people to get in and clean up, and also to get their businesses back on track.

One of the advantages of the legislation, say, for the Kaikōura earthquake recovery, was that it actually allowed the road and rail to be reopened much quicker because it allowed for complete bypassing of the normal resource consent requirements. In Kaikōura—where entire hillsides had fallen down and blocked the road, blocked the rail—they just got bulldozers in and they dozed all of that material into the sea and they formed a new structural platform for the rail and the road.

Now, can you imagine trying to get a resource consent, trying to tread carefully through the RMA, all the cultural impact assessments, everything else you’d need to sneak through in the Environment Court—and maybe a High Court challenge, maybe all the way to the Supreme Court—to be allowed to widen the road by tipping natural rock into the sea? The ACT Party says, “Look, while we appreciate some of the improvements; some of the things that will make it easier for people in Hawke’s Bay and other regions to recover, we are disappointed by what is missing from the bill.”

But I just want to come to some of the suggestions that ACT made at the Governance and Administration Committee and what we think would help actually improve the legislation. We were concerned that major asset owners—Waka Kotahi, KiwiRail, and the experts at the Infrastructure Commission—did not appear and give evidence. We heard from officials that they had been spoken to, but the committee members never had a chance to ask them. The things that Waka Kotahi, KiwiRail, and the Infrastructure Commission said were important: did those actually flow through to the legislation? We don’t know that.

We’re also proposing, as a first principle when it comes to the Resource Management Act, that any emergency stabilisation or activities to ensure safety; or improve resilience, restore access or services; or rebuilding activity should be a permitted activity. But, in fact, what this legislation says is that you’re still going to have to get consents for it; you’re just going to have to come back six months or a year later and prove to your local council—the regulator—why you should be allowed to do something that you’ve already done. Some of the people who testified, who came to the committee on behalf of councils, said that would put an onerous and completely unnecessary burden on the regulator and on councils to have to go through a consenting process for stuff that’s already been done and is highly unlikely ever to be undone.

Submitters including Federated Farmers and Horticulture New Zealand pointed out that landowners are facing clearing huge amounts of timber slash—entire trees, whole areas of entire forest, mature and partly grown, have come down and are strewn all over the countryside. What they’ve asked for is the ability to be able to pick this material up, pile it into burn piles carefully, and they’re happy to follow a management plan to do that. What they’ve asked for—this is currently a prohibited activity—is to be able to burn this waste material which litters the countryside and not risk being prosecuted because of the presence of a little bit of plastic coated copper wire or the odd tanalised timber fence post.

I do take the point that the Green member Eugenie Sage made that in Christchurch they were able to bring all this material to a very large processing facility and sort it out and then find other ways to divert it—some of it’s gone to the Golden Bay cement factory, for example, where it is burned in a cement kiln at high temperatures. They just don’t have the luxury of sorting it all out carefully. These are not homes that have been destroyed, although there are some; this is a whole mixture of material that looks like a giant’s crazy game of pick-up sticks.

So, look, the ACT Party recommends that allowance be made for incidental contamination in burn piles, but we also recommend that there is a really up-to-date site management plan and process available to control the human health and environmental effects of that, and that is if we followed the US Army Corps of Engineers 2022 guidance for open-air solid waste burning in contingency locations. That was developed by their Engineer Research and Development Center; it’s the latest up-to-date process for managing the effects of large-scale burning of waste materials in contingency situations—in other words, when you’ve got no other practical options. So there are really good standards we could adopt right now.

Something else the ACT Party disagreed with was a recommendation from the majority on the committee to amend the bill to require landowners to seek prior written consent from those who had interests in sites with cultural significance for Māori. Now, what we do know is that wāhi tapu are typically registered on certificate of title and they should be known to landowners, but what the recommended change to the bill means is that although landowners won’t have to apply for consent to do stuff for six months or 12 months, under the easing, flexible provisions of the bill they won’t be able to do anything until they’ve got local iwi or hapū to sign off that it’s OK and that it doesn’t breach any cultural significance requirements. That seems to be completely at odds with the intent of the bill.

There’s another matter that ACT would like to see some amendments to. We’d like the amendments to the food regulations to also include extending the time that people’s liquor licences are valid for, because it’s going to be some time before businesses are able to rebuild and get back to their normal traffic and normal revenue-generating activities. We think that their liquor licences should also be extended out to at least 31 March 2024.

We think the amendments to the Local Government Act which allow councils to repair and rebuild their three waters assets—which were extinguished by the water services legislation last year—is a great idea. In fact, we applaud the Government for allowing councils to continue to invest in repairing their three waters assets, but we further recommend that the bill be amended to allow councils to have sole decision-making as to how they put back their assets and improve them for their communities and not have to go and consult with the pesky Department of Internal Affairs and their meddling National Transition Unit. We think they should be able to just get on with rebuilding their own assets. In fact, if we’re going to go a step further, we’d say, “Look, the three waters legislation reform process should just be stopped altogether.” It’s completely inappropriate to be carrying out those reforms during this cyclone recovery period.

Now, there are other matters which we think could’ve been addressed by a bill such as this. The ACT Party’s concerned there’s a large number of people who are homeless, who were tenants, who were renters, and that the healthy homes standards mean they won’t be able to move back into their homes—which are yet to be renovated because their landlords could be prosecuted under the healthy homes standards. So the ACT Party would recommend this omnibus bill, if it could be, be amended to include an exemption from compliance with the healthy homes standards so the largest number of people can get back to living in their communities. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s always the most challenging times that bring our communities together, and I was proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with members of the North Shore community, with people that went above and beyond in regards to responding to the floods that impacted large parts of Auckland nearly 45 days ago. Many of these individuals worked hard in order to get food and shelter, even when their own homes had been impacted. And that was the real, true Kiwi spirit that I am happy to support, and am happy to support—as the National Party are—this bill, the Severe Weather Emergency Legislation Bill, to pass through this House. It will, without doubt, help in regards to the response to both the flooding and also Cyclone Gabrielle.

I also want to again express my support and thanks to local government and councils. We’ve always said, on this side of the House, that we fully support what they do and the way in which—particularly, local government, our councils, councillors, and other members within that community—they have responded to the disasters that we’ve seen over the last period. It’s very much a credit to all of those individuals. It very much reinforces the fact that local people are best placed to deal with local issues. They very much have shown that they are able to deal with these challenges; they’re able to take the leadership position, despite the challenges that are thrown up against them. I do wish to acknowledge, in particular, our mayors across the regions impacted, for their work and continued work in regards to this.

I also wish to acknowledge the Governance and Administration Committee, which, very diligently, has undertaken the work under what has been a very short period of time, chaired by the very impressive Ian McKelvie. He is a statesman—a statesman—in this House, and I think that comment would be shared across the House: that the way in which he has conducted that committee is without fault, and, yeah, I wanted to acknowledge that.

We heard before from the Minister for Emergency Management in regards to the 14 written submissions and 13 oral submissions. I also wish to acknowledge the Minister for the continued work that he has been undertaking across the country in regards to, in particular, the emergency management portfolio. The work that he has been doing across our regions has been over and above and beyond, and I do acknowledge the workload that that has placed upon him.

As noted in the first reading of this bill, we have raised our concerns—and we raised our concerns yesterday in the House and at select committee—over the bill’s inclusion around the reversal of changes implemented under the Water Services Entities Act. And to be clear, these changes, and the inclusion of the provision in the Water Services Entities Act in the first place, which stops councils from including water services in long-term plans, should not have been there in the first place. Our concern was that the Government was using this bill to make those changes because it was a mistake, not because it was directly related to the rest of the other changes in the bill. And councils have also, and had already, raised these concerns about this well before the cyclones and floods had impacted. We’re happy to see, obviously, that this ridiculous restriction on councils has been fixed as a result of this bill. It’s just simply that we would have preferred that the Government had done that properly.

I want acknowledge the councils that made submissions as part of the select committee process—as others have noted, Hawke’s Bay, Napier, Gisborne. While they’re still dealing with the challenges that are in front of them across their regions, they took the time to be able to implement into this process. And it was noted by a prior speaker that it very much reinforces the value of ensuring that we do have a public submission process, albeit only for a sure period of time.

People in cyclone-affected areas will be pleased to see this bill pass through this House with the expediency in which it has, and also the overwhelming support across this House. And, despite minor differences, I think it is clear that we have come together across this House to pass meaningful legislation that will make a difference in a timely manner. Even though this natural disaster has caused significant pain and hurt for many people in many communities across this country, the country has stood together in regards to how it’s dealt with this, and I am confident that should, and when, we are faced with a similar incident in the future, we will continue to do and act in the way in which we’ve seen in the past 45 days. I commend this bill to the House.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to take a call on the Severe Weather Emergency Legislation Bill. Can I just begin by acknowledging the people of the Hawke’s Bay, Thames-Coromandel, the Wairarapa, Auckland, Northland, Waikato, Manawatū, all of the areas that have been affected by the devastation of Cyclone Gabrielle. It was an honour and privilege to be a part of the select committee that considered this bill. At the first reading of this bill, we heard a series of powerful speeches from colleagues across the House who had been present during the events, had attempted to get home, attempted to contact family, and we heard from them about the devastation that they had seen on the ground. I particularly want to acknowledge my colleague sitting next to me Anna Lorck for her work over the last few days and weeks with her community.

I know only too well what it is like to be the MP when your electorate in a state of emergency and when people’s lives and livelihoods are at risk; the anxiety that comes with that, the uncertainty, the uncertainty that continues for months afterwards. In Nelson, we have many people who are still out of their homes and uncertain about what the status of their home will be.

In the comments that I’ve made regarding that, is that what happened in Nelson last year was devastating; what has happened in the North Island is at another entire scale. It is a scale that, for those of us who haven’t been there, is difficult to comprehend. The reports are that what you see on the television screens—it is significantly worse than what you see in photographs and on social media. It was humbling to be part of the committee and to hear from members of the local community about the steps that they need this Parliament to take in order to be able to continue appropriately with the recovery.

Can I just begin, as I get into comments around the bill and some of the changes that we look to make and some of the submissions that we heard, by acknowledging particularly the work of the officials. There were a number of agencies who provided advice to the committee, and I want to name them today: the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of Internal Affairs, the Ministry for Primary Industries, the Ministry for the Environment, the National Emergency Management Agency, the Office of the Clerk, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. At times, there would have been 30 to 40 officials in the room and others on Zoom and others working behind the scenes in order for us to treat this legislation, even though we did so quickly, with the respect that it deserved during that time. So I want to pay particular tribute to those officials for the work they did throughout the night to ensure that we were as best advised as we could be as a committee to make the recommendations that we have done.

Just to the bill, the bill is an omnibus bill, and so it amends the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act, the Resource Management Act, the Local Government Act, the Food Act, and Food Regulations 2015. The measures in the bill ensure that people, communities, and organisations are able to take the steps and measures they need to as they continue through the recovery period following Cyclone Gabrielle.

Myself and the chair Ian McKelvie—who I wish to acknowledge, who did an excellent job of chairing the committee throughout yesterday—sat down and agreed 96 interested groups that we would invite to submit on the bill. Following that, we received 14 written submissions, and we heard oral evidence from 13 submitters yesterday.

There were a number of themes that came through, and some other submitters have already mentioned those, but I’ll just mention some of those briefly. What came up, which Mr Woodhouse has already noted, is around some of the inconsistency with the repeal dates that were in the bill. So we looked at that and have recommended some changes to some of those dates so that they are consistent across the bill.

We heard from submitters about the work in the bill that extends time frames for remote attendance. Currently, for those who are members of a local council, they are not able to participate remotely like we do at our select committees. This is something that has been called upon by the sector, actually, to be a permanent change, and it’s the committee’s hope that that will eventually become a permanent change. But that is important. We have a number of councils in the affected area where councillors may have to travel for one to two hours or three hours in each direction in order to get to a meeting and in order for those councils to make good quality decisions as we got through a recovery. The ability for them to participate and represent their communities is extremely important. So I’m pleased that we have that in the bill and I do note that it’s something that probably needs to change in the legislation in a permanent fashion.

We heard from a number of iwi and Māori organisations, and I want to acknowledge them in particular. At times like this, it is often our marae who lean in and step up and offer their resources, offer their services, offer their whare for people to be safe, for people to be looked after, for their welfare to be considered. We did hear from agencies about their views that it would be good for iwi Māori to have more engagement with emergency management, and I note in my own region, following the Pigeon Valley fires a few years ago, that we bedded iwi representatives both within the governance framework that we use for civil defence but also for the civil defence and emergency management room. When they’re in the room, and whenever I’ve now visited in other emergencies that we’ve faced, having those connections to iwi who have deep relationships in their communities is incredibly important. And the value and skill that they bring to the roles is something that I have valued as a local MP and the select committee has noted in its report, which I do encourage you to read—and I’ll just read this statement that “We wish to acknowledge the valuable role that Māori play in supporting responses to emergencies, including the work that various marae have undertaken and the resources they have organised to assist in the response and recovery from the events.”

One of the conversations that I spent a lot of time having with officials—and I’m looking forward to, when we reach the committee stage, hearing from the Minister regarding this in particular—following some feedback from a couple of the councils, was around the retrospective consenting for work undertaken in that emergency phase, and I just acknowledge comments on that from my colleague Simon Court.

I do want to acknowledge officials. I think I tested their patience a little throughout this time, just testing out exactly what that could look like. The committee have noted that it’s an area of work we would like to see further work explored over the coming time, because if work has already been completed in that emergency phase in order to save lives and livelihoods, there is, I think, a fair point there around the time it takes to put in place a retrospective consent. But I would also note my view on this that it is very important that there is a record, there is knowledge, of the activity that has occurred, because if it has affected a land use or a building, that does need to be placed on the record somehow. So I think it will be good to see some further work on that occur in the future.

I just want to finish, again, by acknowledging the exceptional work of the officials on this bill. I saw officials work in a way that you don’t always get to see as a member of Parliament, in terms of working quickly with each other. I was so impressed with how the officials from across different agencies actually sat down and talked amongst themselves to ensure they were together collectively providing the best advice. They’re exceptional New Zealanders and as New Zealanders in this House, we saw the best of them yesterday.

So it’s an excellent bill. Despite the short time frame, I’m convinced that the committee and the officials have done their best to bring back recommendations to the House that will support this region through its recovery, and I commend it to the House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I start where Rachel Boyack left off, by acknowledging those who have worked very hard on this legislation these past few days. Of course, it’s appropriate to acknowledge those who, first of all, on the night’s flooding in Auckland, and then in Cyclone Gabrielle, which had great effects—significant effects, of course, across the country, including on the East Coast of the North Island, and further north and further afield too. We thank those who opened their doors; who were first responders, at great risk to life and limb; and who are doing ongoing work, and, of course, it’s precisely because there is ongoing work that this legislation is needed to chart a path forward to enable the work that is already happening, in some cases, to be done in a way that doesn’t fall foul of the law.

So that’s a major theme of the legislation. It’s the reason that it needs to move quickly through this House, and I do want to acknowledge the points that are very reasonably made by those who are saying that this House should be cautious of its use of urgency or truncated procedures. Of course they’re right, and I think everyone in this House would acknowledge that. Nevertheless, for reasons that have been well articulated by the Government—first of all in the Business Committee context, and then also in this House and at various points—it is necessary to move this quickly. I have sympathy, as always, with the proposal that post-enactment scrutiny would be better than nothing, so I place that on the record, as suggested, for example, in the select committee process yesterday by Dr Dean Knight.

This legislation, I suppose, and disaster response more generally always provokes quite an existential question, I suppose, for an Opposition part of Parliament, which is to say: do we support the Government, or do we hold them to account? Of course, I’ve framed that in a way that would be facile to view, I suppose, as mutually exclusive—of course we should support the Government to the extent that they are making good decisions that make the lives of New Zealanders easier and better, but we should also hold them to account as the days and weeks and months go forward in terms of actions that are taken or not taken, as the case may be.

So in the spirit of supporting these excellent measures in the bill, we have said that we will support it. We do support it, including, as I say—to be clear—the use of a truncated process, because we have assessed that to be necessary in the circumstances.

In terms of what the bill actually does, the Minister has talked, I think, about the way that declarations can be made in different parts of the country and on a national basis, and of course it’s an unintended consequence that we might previously have had a legislative regime that precluded different areas being able to access the supports that they need. Of course we should check that the system is working well as the years go by if—heaven forbid—similar events were to occur in the future, requiring that level of response across a wide geographical area, but for now, at least, that seems the right fix to be made to remove that current technical problem in the law.

As far as the time frames for Resource Management Act (RMA) consenting decisions and retrospective actions go, I think that’s very appropriate. We don’t need to go into the whole question of the liberalisation of the RMA, as proposed, for example, in the new legislation today to say that forgiveness versus permission is obviously a key dichotomy that people in my electorate and, of course, in others as well are considering. So I think, for example, of the people of Taupaki, who discussed at a community meeting that I was able to attend the merits of actually just getting on and doing some of the works that they needed themselves. Of course, the inevitable question of liability under the RMA or the health and safety Act was raised. The good people of that area have done the right thing. They’ve proceeded with caution to do what they need to protect themselves and their community, and I think it’s appropriate that we pass legislation that makes it clear that they shouldn’t be exposed legally as well as physically to the risks inherent in doing so.

As far as the Local Government Act is concerned, it is yet another piece of legislation that’s amended by this bill. It is omnibus, which is to say a number of bits of legislation are being amended. There’s a level of complexity to that in a Government response that’s needed across different Ministers and different agencies. Others have acknowledged that, but I’ve placed on record that I think it has appeared impressive to me, from the outside, that that work has been done so quickly and in such a coordinated fashion.

To the point that, again, Rachel Boyack was making about online meetings, I agree with those who have suggested that this is a move that should be made anyway, and if we were not convinced of that already following the COVID-19 pandemic, then we should simply get on and do that as a lawmaking institution. Without going down the rabbit-hole of a different portfolio, certainly it seems to me that there are other areas for it in public life, such as the court system, in which we can make much better use of audiovisual technology. Also, the obvious question is: if Parliament were not available to sit, as we are doing now—for example, if it were the Christmas - New Year period in which we were considering this kind of law—it would be that much more difficult and that much more time-consuming from the point of view of people on the ground to have the relief that we are able to provide today.

So with those reflections, I again reiterate National’s support for the response in general, notwithstanding that we will of course hold it to account, as necessary, in terms of actions subsequent. This legislation itself we think is needed, it’s needed in the time frame that the Government has put forward, and so we will continue to support it through its passage for the remainder of today.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As with all of these bills that are passed under urgency, I understand that it’s about achieving balance, and we have to weigh up between being able to help those who are now recovering from the devastating weather events of Cyclone Gabrielle or the floods in Auckland on its anniversary weekend, or having enough adequate scrutiny of a bill and going through the full legislative process. I know that a lot of these points have been traversed in this House throughout this afternoon. So I thank all of the previous speakers for acknowledging that point. As we always do, we strive to find that perfect balance.

This time, actually, I was very honoured to be able to participate in a very unique select committee process, which was that one-day select committee process. During that day—and I completely agree with my colleague Rachel here—we did see the best of our Public Service. We saw public servants and we saw our advisers and our officials probably not even having the chance to sleep for very long, but they came out to Parliament the next day, still smiling and still ready to answer all of our questions no matter how interesting or ridiculous they were. They have definitely gone above and beyond their call of duty in this instance.

Being able to traverse all of the points in very fine detail was exactly what we could do and what we did during the select committee process. Some of them that especially come to my mind are ones around the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act but also the Resource Management Act (RMA). Especially with the RMA, we were able to talk about things like how we’re going to deal with the silt; how we’re going to deal with all of the forestry slashes that had come down; where we burn these things; how we, in the best way, in terms of the environment and the community, get rid of all of this—I would call it—“organic rubbish” that has been caused through the flooding and through all of the slips.

We were able to look at the Local Government Act as well, and that actually raises a really good point, and I think it’s been one that has been discussed out there in the community for a very long time: the fact that local government bodies cannot meet through audio or visual links on platforms like Zoom and other technologies, and have to meet physically to count towards the quorum. So this is 2023, and, obviously, there are a lot of bills that we need to be updating to make sure that the law that we make in this House is kept up to date with the technology that’s available to us to be able to participate in decision making and democracy. So while we completely support this bill and we completely support the temporary changes that we can make for those in the affected areas, I think there was also a question raised during the select committee process as to whether we would look at further extending it to modernise it, but I understand that is a point for another day. But thank you to all the submitters who had raised that point.

We also spent a lot of time looking at the Food Act and the Food Regulations 2015. That was one of the Acts where I personally was actually very concerned that food safety would still be upheld in those affected areas while we gave what we call an extension of these permits. I was worried that while they were recovering, food poisoning would become an issue. We know that in the eatery industry, in the restaurants and cafes, some of them are serial offenders and we know that some of them have been put on plans and short notices to be able to keep getting the inspectors to go back in short amounts of time so that they can actually be kept at close supervision. So I have asked the officials whether or not, by extending that time to renew, the supervision of, I would say, some of the bad players would actually weaken or loosen. I had a really good answer back to me and was really reassured that, no, all the local agencies would still be able to schedule different inspections at different times if they saw the need, as well.

So, Madam Speaker, you can hear that we’ve actually really traversed all of the details in this bill. I thank all of the officials, I thank all of the clerks of the committee, and I thank our Parliamentary Counsel Office drafters—they really have worked so hard. I thank the committee members. I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): In accordance with the determination of the Business Committee, this bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Severe Weather Emergency Legislation Bill.

In Committee

Parts 1 to 4, the Schedule, and clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee on the Severe Weather Emergency Legislation Bill. Multiple Ministers are available to answer questions on the various provisions in the bill, so members should be aware that it won’t necessarily be the Minister in the chair answering questions. Members, we come first to Part 1.

CAMILLA BELICH (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The bill will be heard as one. The question is that Parts 1 to 4, the Schedule, and clauses 1 and 2 be agreed to.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Just for the clarity of the House, we have Minister O’Connor, and will have Minister Parker, available to answer specific questions—and of course I’m here as well if anyone wants to ask me a question. But I just want to take the opportunity again to acknowledge the good work of all members of the committee and the House.

This bill attempts to address some pretty clear and obvious things that can be done now at this point to assist in the recovery. We have indicated that there will be a second bill, which we will continue to engage with other parties on in that respect, following a similar approach that was taken after the Hurunui-Kaikōura earthquake. But in this instance, we didn’t want to delay things.

The four provisions that are proposed in this bill will assist those affected communities and local councils and civil defence emergency management groups to deal with the emergency and to assist in planning for the next severe weather event. We have traversed aspects of the bill in detail, albeit being in a shortened process, so I’ll just take the opportunity to hand it over to members if they have questions.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Simon Watts—sorry; Simon Court. Too many Simons. Simon Court.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Mr Chair, thank you. Mr Watts, you can go next. Minister, I’m interested in Part 3, “Amendments to Local Government Act 2002”, in particular clause 14, which allows for councils to carry out some long-term planning functions to amend an existing long-term plan, which is the plan that authorises councils to spend money on infrastructure, including three waters infrastructure. The committee understood that the Water Services Entities Act—the three waters bill that was passed late last year—meant that local councils were not able to commission any three waters work, to replace any three waters assets, any pipes, waste-water treatment plants, and so on that were damaged because the three waters reforms had meant that they weren’t allowed to do any of that work or spend the extra money if it couldn’t be completed by 1 July 2024, where councils are supposed to hand their assets over to the new water service entities. So can the Minister confirm for the committee that this clause allows councils to put some money into fixing infrastructure that the Water Services Entities Act wouldn’t have allowed them to do otherwise?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): The planning was for the implementation of the water services reform to prevent the commissioning of work that wouldn’t be completed in time for those reforms to come into force. Obviously, with the cyclone, there is the need for certainty for the local government sector, and the need for work to be done now. We didn’t see the need in preventing that work from happening. This is a provision that we included in this at the request of the sector, and we were happy to oblige.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. So, further to that, given that some projects are affected by construction cost inflation, by procurement issues, by getting key staff into the right place, three waters projects are often complex. They require designing infrastructure in watercourses, structural engineering, mechanical, electrical. Not only do they take time to design and implement, they also take time to construct and then commission. So, given that all of this was known before the Water Services Entities Act was passed last year—and, in fact, this advice was given to the Finance and Expenditure Committee that heard evidence from submitters on the bill—is it appropriate just to change this clause here through an omnibus bill, these amendments to the Local Government Act, or, actually, do you think that we should go back and look at the three waters reforms in totality to see what else might need to be fixed?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): I’m happy to respond as far as it is relevant to this bill. This bill addresses a request that was made by the sector, and we’re happy to oblige.

SIMON COURT (ACT): OK. So just to clarify, have councils approached the Minister to ask for these clauses to be inserted in this bill before the cyclone and storm events, or did they come to the Minister and make those requests after the cyclone and storm events?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): As the member has pointed out himself, there have been a range of views on this matter, and some people pointed out during the select committee process that they should be allowed to continue to include water service infrastructure investments in their long-term plan. There were some that agreed that it shouldn’t be, in order to assist with the reforms. Nevertheless, since the cyclone, it has become clear, with engagement from the sector, that they wanted this to be included, to allow them to make the necessary investments as a result of the damage from the cyclone and also to plan for resilience for future weather events.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Further clarifying question on that: so is it correct that this clause allows all councils around New Zealand to make investments in their three waters infrastructure in the period between now—assuming this passes today—and 1 July 2024, that they wouldn’t have otherwise been able to make?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): The point of this is that it allows councils to make investments in water infrastructure as a result of the damage from the cyclone and also to prepare for resilience. It applies to all councils, similarly to the proposal to allow councils to have those that are attending via video link or audiovisual technology to be considered in a quorum. That is also applicable to all councils, and so too are the provisions around civil defence and emergency management groups. We didn’t see the point in limiting these provisions to just those councils that are in the affected areas, because, of course, resilience planning is an important part of any response and recovery planning.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair, and can I thank the Minister for Emergency Management for organising the other Ministers in the Chamber, given that this is an omnibus bill. So I have a question that relates to food safety and the changes to the food regulations. I guess it is one of the issues in terms of when the House is dealing with things quite quickly, but just in the new subpart inserted by clause 12 of the bill, it provides a temporary exemption for affected food businesses, but the way in which an affected food business is defined in the bill “means a food business located wholly or partly in any of the following regions and districts impacted by a severe weather event: (a) the regions of Northland, Auckland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Gisborne, and Hawke’s Bay:” and then the four districts. So a plain reading of that definition could mean that any food business located in one of those regions which hadn’t necessarily been, itself, affected by the weather event could take advantage of these provisions for exemptions.

So my question to the Minister is: can that interpretation be taken of this provision? I understand that some councils such as Auckland are concerned about the implications for food safety if it extends beyond businesses that have been directly affected by the weather event, because, of course, if they’ve had mud and silt through them, and flooding that’s affected their operations, allowing more time for registration makes sense—and similarly, if they’re in isolated communities and are providing food services for those communities. But if this could be read, because of the way an affected food business is defined in clause 12, with the change to section 94B of the regulations, to mean any food business in the Northland, Auckland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Gisborne, and Hawke’s Bay areas could qualify, then that has a whole different impact in terms of food safety than what was considered by the select committee. So can it be read that way?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): I acknowledge the member, and it’s a very fair question. Clearly, the intent of the legislation is not to go beyond the affected areas, but it is also true that in many operations, many businesses, of course, particularly in food, it’s integrated from the place of work; it might be grown, processed, and then sold. So there’s a possibility from what she states and has pointed out here that an extrapolation of that might mean a whole lot more businesses that are not intended to be covered are exempted by this legislation. So I will commit to ask of officials clarity and, if need be, to make the adjustments necessary.

SIMON COURT (ACT): This question is about the amendments to the Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991, in Part 4. So the bill provides for regions to have more flexible Resource Management Act consenting processes where those regions have been affected by the storms and floods—severe weather events. So we’ve got Northland, Auckland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Gisborne, Hawke’s Bay, Tararua, Masterton, Carterton, and South Wairarapa. Federated Famers suggested that there were places that had suffered storm damage, including in Manawatū—in the Rangitīkei region—where trees had been absolutely flattened and there were slips, but they weren’t included in the bill. A suggestion was made that rather than just trying to identify specific local authority regions or districts, that, actually, “the North Island” would have been a suitable geographical indicator. So I’d like the Minister responsible for the Resource Management Act amendments to answer that question: why wasn’t the North Island allowed to be the area that these modifications apply to—on the basis that if there’s damage from the severe weather events, the damage has occurred, no matter where it has occurred?

The second question I’d like to ask is around activities undertaken in affected areas, and why the zones that are allowed easier consenting pathways are limited to rural land; Māori purpose zoning land: marae, papakāinga, or urupā; and land used for the primary purpose of livestock and horticultural farming? Because what we have heard from submitters is that large areas of commercial property and residential property have also been affected—they’ve been damaged by floods; they’ve had silt through them, they’ve been smashed, they’ve had logs and slash and all kinds of things destroy homes and buildings. And yet, commercial and residential property is not covered—in fact, it’s specifically excluded, because this only applies to rural land.

So submitters to the Governance and Administration Committee yesterday, and the ACT Party, would like to know, why on earth don’t the provisions allowing for easier RMA consenting apply to all property that’s been damaged by the floods and storms? And notwithstanding the Hon Eugenie Sage’s concerns that some of that land might have contaminants on it—well, of course, there are site management plans available to download off the internet to tell you how to clean up a contaminated site and what personal protective equipment (PPE) to wear. It’s not something you necessarily need a consent for. There is other legislation—the Health and Safety at Work Act—that would tell you what PPE to wear when you’re cleaning up potential contaminants.

So if we could just get an answer to those first two questions: why are the regions so limited here; why does the legislation not simply just apply to land affected by storm damage? And why on earth are commercial and residential lands excluded from the flexibility provisions allowed for under these RMA amendments?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): That’s a reasonable question, and it’s an issue that we’ve been balancing throughout the response so far. The member will note that throughout the Government assistance, we’ve tried really hard not to limit that just to those areas that had declared—and therefore were included in—the national state of emergency, because we recognise that there are areas outside of those that did declare that also got damaged by the cyclone. So that explains the inclusion of the Masterton, Carterton, and South Wairarapa districts, for example. The coastal areas of those regions were hit quite severely; the regions did not feel the need to declare because they were able to handle it locally, but the damage was such that they warranted being brought in to the national transition phase, they warranted being included in the business and farming support package and available for the civil defence payments. Extending that out to other provisions is also pretty complex, because we recognise that there are areas that have been hit, but being able to define those and target the assistance to the areas where it is needed is actually not a straightforward process.

So what we’ve proposed is that in this bill, we know the areas that have been impacted—and we know that, in terms of the provision and the allowances that it offers to those that have been hit, the bill is straightforward with these areas that have been hit and declared. The second bill that is coming through does give us an opportunity to look more broadly and provide assistance potentially to those areas that have been affected, but haven’t been included in the scope of this.

Like I said in my first contribution, the rationale was that we knew we needed to do this straight away. If we looked at what we’re looking to do in the second bill as well as this, that would have required a longer process, thus delaying these things we needed to do now. So, I guess, in short, what I’m saying is that we know we need to do these, we’re doing these, but we will consider what other support we can provide, including to those areas that are possibly outside of those that have been identified in these ones.

SIMON COURT (ACT): OK, well, look, thank you. I’d just like to move on because I think it’s important that we do actually progress this legislation as far as practical today. I just want to come to new section 331B, with respect to the Resource Management Act. It’s about what an owner or occupier of rural land can do if they’re taking emergency, preventative, or remedial measures. And we assume that that includes things like clearing slips, reinstating drainage, and potentially standing up buildings, sheds, and shelters, but also dealing with the huge amount of debris: the slash; entire trees, including their root balls; all of the debris from fences that have been ripped up, that still include their wire; telephone poles, power poles, and all the electrical wire, which is plastic-coated copper wire; and, potentially, tanalised timber and other materials.

I’ve travelled to Hawke’s Bay with David Seymour. We visited the devastated rural areas: orchards, vineyards, and sheep and beef farms. And it was clear that sorting out the debris, even if you bought the latest forestry gear or demolition excavators with grapples, with buckets and thumbs, and you shook it all out, as you would do if you were doing demolition on buildings and structures, it would be almost impossible to remove residual contamination like pieces of plastic-coated copper wire or the occasional tanalised timber - treated fence post. It’s just not feasible. And we know that Federated Farmers and other landowners have been asking, “Please, when can we get on with clearing up? Because until we know we’re allowed to deal with these materials by burning, there’s no point in us picking it up. We don’t have any other option. There’s no landfill we can take it to. We can’t even put it in a truck because it’s way too bulky and messy.”

And so what they’ve asked for is permission to burn it, or for a relaxation of the laws, knowing full well that it’s a prohibited activity, particularly in the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s regional plans—prohibited activity—to burn any material that contains plastic-coated copper wire, which you might find in bit of broken telephone cable or power line. It’s a prohibited activity to burn any tanalised timber. And, of course, you can understand why that would be in normal circumstances, but what that means is, under new section 331B(3), inserted by clause 21, those activities—the burning of any incidental material—would not be permitted. It won’t be, because it’s prohibited in a regional plan.

So what the ACT Party wants to know, on behalf of farmers and landowners who want to be able to stack up this material; clear creeks; clear land; get ready to remediate their pastures, their orchards and their properties; and dispose of this material—will they be allowed to burn it? And will they be allowed to burn it using a suitable site management plan, such as the US Army Corps of Engineers plan I referred to before—the procedure for open-air solid-waste burning in contingency locations, which, essentially, is after an emergency, when you’ve got heaps of stuff to dispose of—published by the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Engineer Research and Development Center, will it be acceptable, Minister; would you accept a further amendment so that, with a suitable site management plan such as one I’ve described, farmers should be allowed to get on with stacking and burning this material?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): I thank the member for their contributions, it’s an entirely fair point. And his description of the complexity of this is absolutely accurate. Anyone that has been on the ground and has seen the extent of the damage has been able to see that there’s absolutely no way that these landowners or occupants could ever separate the debris that has unfortunately landed on many of their properties.

At no point has the Government indicated that it wouldn’t be supportive of a straightforward, practical, and simple way to deal with it. Although we have looked at that as a potential inclusion in this, the advice was that, obviously, the burning of tanalised timber does create a serious environmental and human health risk, and so that needs to be considered very carefully. And so I asked the Minister of the Environment about this specifically this morning and asked if we were able to give people an indication as to whether it is the Government’s intention to allow the sort of thing that the member was describing, once the provisions in the second bill are passed. And he said, quite clearly, yes, it is. So I would say to those people out there that are wanting clarity around this, it may not be included in this bill, the Severe Weather Emergency Legislation Bill, but it certainly is the Government’s intention to address it once we’ve worked through those serious environmental and human health concerns around that.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you. Can I just ask you to clarify, because we understand another bill is coming and it’s likely to be introduced on, I think, 28 March according to Grant Robertson. But today is 16 March, and for people who have been waiting for some indication as to how they should clean up and what they should do with the materials, waiting another couple of weeks for the Government to bring another bill to the House, and we assume it will be under urgency again and we’ll have one day of submissions again—while there is still fine weather, while you can still get tracked machines, excavators, dozers, gear with grapples, while it’s still possible to get there and clean up before the ground is wet, why on earth can’t we amend this bill today to allow for adoption of a suitable site management plan that allows for open-air solid-waste burning, notwithstanding that there are human health risks, notwithstanding that there are environmental risks? Of course, the US Army Corps of Engineers’ procedure for open-air burning of solid waste in contingency locations provides for bunding around the areas where burning is going to take place so that run-off does not contaminate surrounding areas. Of course, it allows for burning to only take place when wind directions and atmospheric conditions are favourable, and that means so that the smoke is not blowing in the direction of residential communities.

Now, all of this knowledge has been accumulated over decades and decades of probably not the best environmental practice, but I would have thought that when in 2022 the US Army Engineer Research and Development Center publishes a document that says this is how it could be done safely in response to an emergency in a contingency location, that should be able to be included today. Otherwise, farmers, rural landowners, are going to have to wait weeks even to work out what they might be allowed to do with it. They can’t even plan. They can’t get a contractor to come and say, “Here’s an environmental management plan. Here’s a site management plan. Here’s an outline plan of works.”, because they have no idea what is the regulatory framework they’re operating under. And that seems to be a massive omission in this bill that we’re prepared to pass here this afternoon, and yet provides no direction at all for people faced with this enormous task of cleaning up, Minister.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I can confirm that these issues have been carefully considered by the local councils, with assistance from the emergency management teams, the Ministry for the Environment, the Ministry for Primary Industries, and I think the Environmental Protection Authority. Currently, there is a prohibition in the local district plan, or at least one of them—I think it’s the Hawke’s Bay district plan; I’m not sure about Tai Rāwhiti—against the burning of tanalised timber, and therefore, at the moment, burning a mixed pile of timber that includes tanalised timber is a prohibited activity. So there is a problem that does need to be remedied here, because it is clear that although, as Horticulture New Zealand says, on some occasions it is realistic to sort the tanalised out and separate it, it is not always realistic.

I have been, as has emergency management Minister McAnulty, to sites where these huge amounts of debris are being put into windrows in readiness for burning in the future. I certainly accept that in the future some of these piles of debris are likely to have to be burned and they won’t be able to be all sorted to remove all of the tanalised timber. I’m also aware from my discussions with the horticulturalists who have been piling up those piles of debris, which are a mixture of trees that have come from higher up the catchments; more of them are actually the likes of willows that have been pulled out of the sides of the riverbanks and then have come through breaches of the flood banks over horticultural land and farmland—but mainly horticultural that I’m aware of—plus shelter belts from the orchards themselves, plus trees from the orchards, apple trees or kiwifruit vines or grape vines, depending on the circumstance, plus tanalised posts sometimes, plus lamp posts. I’m aware that all of those materials were swept into place by water. Ipso facto, they are actually currently very wet and the people that I met did not want to burn them at the moment, even if they could, because they wouldn’t burn very well and they wouldn’t burn hot and there would be more smoke and toxins, including from the tanalised. So the person that I met with said that he thought that the plan should be that those materials be allowed to dry over the next year, by which he meant through the balance of this year and the summer next year, at which point he thought those materials—this is what he told me—would be ready to burn.

So, in response to the member’s question, there will probably be a need for this Parliament or the Government through Order in Council to override the rules and the plan that absolutely ban the burning of tanalised material, but we don’t need to do it today. The better route for that is to enable that through the second piece of legislation, which will enable by Order in Council the overriding of some of those strict prohibitions in the current plan, which I think the district council and the locals and probably even the district health authorities—one of the health authorities present in the area has noted that we do need to be a bit cautious about this because we don’t want to create another problem.

So the route for that is by an Order in Council, and through that Order in Council, rather than just having a simple deemed permitted activity rule with no controls on how you do it, we can then, through that Order in Council, impose an appropriate set of rules, as the member has said, an offshore wind—not everyone doing it on the same day. You know, that would be a conflagration that the local fire brigade probably would have a problem putting out if we had this all being on the same day. But farmers and horticulturalists can rest assured that I think everyone realises that we do need a practical solution here. It’s just something that can’t be done today and should be done by the Order in Council route under the second piece of legislation.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I notice that the Minister for primary industries, who also has responsibility for food safety, is in the Chamber, and I just wondered if he was able to update the committee in relation to my questions about clause 12 and affected food businesses and why the bill, at plain reading, appears to apply these exemptions to all of the food businesses in the impacted areas. Kia ora.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Mr Chair. I don’t want to cut across the Minister here, but, very briefly, having had the issue raised by the member before, I checked with officials. This is a permissive change. It does rely on trust, but it’s also to relieve pressure—pressure not just on the businesses that are trying to recover from this flood in Auckland in particular but other regions and councils as well. So the exemption is just a temporary one that allows and says that businesses that haven’t been able to get recertified are not deemed to be acting illegally.

If there are persistent offenders in the area of food safety, then New Zealand Food Safety will be able to visit and the councils will be able to visit to ensure that standards of food are maintained. This simply relieves the administrative pressure on both the council and on those businesses for a short period of time. Yes, it is across all of Auckland—as it is across the other regions—and the council rightfully might have some concerns, but it hasn’t prevented them from intervening where it believes it is necessary.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Chair. I note both Ministers’ comments just now, and I rise as the horticulture spokesperson for the National Party and have been talking with Horticulture New Zealand a fair bit, and also with other stakeholders, and there are just three things I wanted to touch on.

There’s, firstly, the silt debris which is out there at the moment, and quite a lot of the feedback is that they want regional councils to be able to open sites so that then they can deposit that silt. In a lot of cases, it’s not practical; there’s too much of it to plough it into the soil. Whether we can look at any emergency powers to force regional councils to open up those areas.

Secondly, and I know Simon Court from the ACT Party has been talking about it with the wood and the debris and the slash and all of that. I understand it’s extremely complicated, but it’s really difficult for people who have lost everything, aren’t going to get any income this year, and are facing huge rebuild costs—are they even going to bother cleaning up their orchard if they can’t do it in a practical sense? What they’ve been saying to me is that they would like—with proper operation controls—the ability to put that debris into an area and then, at the right time, ignite that and get rid of that. And would the Minister look at emergency, whatever it may be—emergency legislation or passing it through to enable that to happen in a timely manner—so that they can start moving forward?

The third bit is around the funding for these folks. I know the Government has offered $2,000 per hectare for orchardists, which is a start, but we’re looking at clean-up costs here at around $40k to $70k per hectare, where it’s been badly affected, and then rebuild of about $200k. So $2k per hectare is nice, but it’s not viable going forward. And these people, they’re getting through the emotional trauma, the adrenaline’s wearing off a bit, and they’re now thinking, “Is it even worthwhile me doing this?” We want Hawke’s Bay to be a thriving community. We want it to keep those jobs, all their ancillary services that run off the back of the apple and pear industry—almost a billion dollars a year in the apple industry. And I would want to hear from the Minister—and I asked Minister O’Connor last week—when we would expect a bigger and, frankly, a more practical financial package to be announced for those folks.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): On the sediment issue, I’m aware that councils are doing their best to create areas that sediment can be moved to. Some of this sediment is actually useful for the councils to rebuild stopbanks, because it’s a very fine sediment which is mixed with aggregates, and compacts well to rehabilitate the flood banks. So I’m not sure whether those decisions have been finalised by the councils. If the councils need assistance from central government to override their own rules in their plans in order to allow quickly sediment-deposition areas for sediment to be stored—for example, while it’s being used for a stopbank—they can approach us. But I’m not aware of there being any delay occasioned by that.

In respect of the woody debris, I answered that question. I thought people can already pile up their debris and are, and, yes, some of it’s going to have to be burnt in the future. It’s not viable to chip it all; although some of it could be chipped, perhaps.

In respect of the financial assistance, the substantial financial assistance that has already been provided is not necessarily the end of the matter, but that’s being worked through with industry-good organisations, through the group that has been chaired by Sir Brian Roche and the relevant Cabinet committee that has been set up to deal with the emergency response.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. The Gisborne District Council raised a very good point in their submission that the new Natural and Built Environment Bill extends the time that councils can take to lodge criminal proceedings to two years. They noted, given their resources are already stretched dealing with the response, that they don’t have the ability to commit all of their normal resources to investigations, particularly around forestry slash. Of course, it was the Gisborne District Council which undertook the prosecutions of four forestry companies in relation to slash previously. So they were suggesting that the bill actually extend the limitation period for an offence under the Resource Management Act from 12 months to two years. That’s not something that was in this bill.

So my question to the Minister is: is it something that he would consider for the subsequent legislation? Forestry slash is something that the community in the affected regions wants people to take responsibility for, particularly the companies, and those that are responsible being held to account. So is that an option in the subsequent legislation, extending that limitation period?

My other question relates to what monitoring the Ministry for the Environment is going to assist councils with in terms of the wide scope of permitted activities on rural land, the extensive areas which those permitted activities apply to—much more than Hurunui-Kaikōura—and just ensuring that there aren’t unanticipated environmental effects, despite the changes that the committee is recommending to ensure effects stay on property? So what monitoring, and would he consider extending that limitation period for enforcement proceedings?

Thirdly, is the Environmental Protection Authority able to give any assistance to councils, and will there be any extra resourcing to assist with any enforcement that’s needed?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In respect of the limitation period, I’m happy to take advice on that, but I suspect the advice would be that you should not do that retrospectively. In respect of offences that have already been committed, I would have thought that the limitation period that applied at the date of the offence would not be changed, even if prospectively the new legislation is adjusting the limitation period for offences later than that. I can check on that point, but I expect that’s the answer. So, in essence, no, but I’m happy to check on the matter.

In respect of the forestry slash issues, the forestry industry, I think, would make the point that in the Hawke’s Bay, it’s actually generally not forestry debris; it’s—and I’ve seen this myself when I was up there—that mixture of, you know, the—to protect the river banks of a river at high flow, if you think of the flow of the river normally being in quite a small channel, at the edge of that channel where you would normally have a full flow, those river banks are protected by trees, often willow trees, and that’s a good thing because it stops the banks being eroded normally. This has been such an enormous event, that it’s taken out all of those willows and other trees along the banks of the river, and they, in turn, have banked up at bridges, broken through the stopbanks, scoured out the stopbanks, and ended up on the orchards—in addition to the shelter belt from the orchards and the trees in the orchards—that’s not namely plantation forestry slash. In the Gisborne Tai Rāwhiti area, those issues are somewhat different and longer-standing, as the member well knows. We’ve set up an inquiry chaired by the Hon Hekia Parata; with Bill Bayfield, ex - Ministry for the Environment (MFE) and various regional councils; and a Mr McCloy, who’s a forestry expert, looking at those issues and reporting in the next two months on those issues.

In respect of “Will MFE have a big presence up there?”, no. We are determined that this be a council-led approach. Government is helping councils lead this in various ways. The Ministry for the Environment is not a department—

Hon Eugenie Sage: Funding—funding.

Hon DAVID PARKER: —that has regional presence. The member’s now saying “Fund it.” Well, you can say that, but we actually don’t have the people to do that and I haven’t yet received a request from the councils to help them do it.

SIMON COURT (ACT): The ACT Party has one final concern, which we’d just like the Minister to respond to. It was suggested by the majority in the Governance and Administration Committee to add a clause around requiring landowners to seek permission if they wanted to work on any land that might impact on, or be, a site of cultural significance to Māori.

While we understand that there are sites—potentially wāhi tapu sites, and others which have been affected—on property that is damaged by floods and debris and so on, every other aspect of amendments to the Resource Management Act facilitate, add flexibility, provide opportunities, and make it easier for people to do stuff with the land. And yet there is new section 331C and new section 331B(3A) and (3B), inserted by clause 21 in the bill,—you’ve added, Minister, another entire page to the legislation, which creates a requirement to give “the relevant iwi or hapū … 20 working days’ ” notice, and then, potentially, to carry out a cultural impact assessment, and obtain protocols and management plans, before any activity is undertaken.

So not even land that has wāhi tapu on it or other significant sites but land that might be impacted by activities next door. So, Minister, could you please explain to the committee, and to rural landowners, councils, who might want to get on with cleaning up and reinstating infrastructure, how on earth, on the one hand, the Resource Management Act amendments make it easier to do stuff, and then these clauses are being inserted which mean you’ll have to go and seek permission from people about how private property owners and councils use their land.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I’m sure officials can correct me if I get this wrong, but I was advised on this matter over the last day, and was advised that this applies to where there are already known and identified sites. There’s not an inquiry necessary as to whether the land in question includes sites such as this; it’s where those sites have previously been identified in the way that’s listed in the legislation.

So the landowner already knows that these things are there and therefore the requirement on the landowner is that if they were going to, for example, dump a great big load of silt that was being moved from another part of the property on to those areas which have been previously identified as being significant in that sense, they are required under this to give written notice to the relevant person or entity, and then there’s a period for them to respond—if that person doesn’t respond then you’re quite correct, they would not have the permitted activity route and they would then have to apply for a resource consent if there was a contest. We think that that is reasonable in the circumstances.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wonder if the Minister can give any discussion about the logic of the commencement dates. Just, obviously, competing considerations in terms—want to provide as much certainty going forward, but also noting the fact that we’re passing this law in a truncated process. I’m not asking for particular dates for particular provisions, but just any sort of general philosophy that the Government’s had in terms of making it a piece of law that’s necessary in the moment but not to have a longer duration than is felt to be needed for that purpose.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Mr Chair. The commencement date is the date on which it receives Royal assent. People want these permitted activity routes to start as soon as—

Chris Penk: The sunset, sorry.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Oh, sorry. The sunset dates have been extended. Actually, the main reason that they’ve been extended was that there was—and this actually goes to the waterlogged nature of some of the soils at the moment. Some of this remedial work is best carried out once the soils dry out a bit. We’re coming into winter, and so there was a view that the legislation shouldn’t drive people, in order to take this permitted activity route, to do this earlier than it perhaps should be done. So we’re giving them a bit more time to do this so that they’ve both got a bit more time to do it—because people are pretty pressured, sometimes—but also, secondly, some of this is better done after winter when things have stabilised a bit and dried out.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 323 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Parts 1 to 4, the Schedule, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Severe Weather Emergency Legislation Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): In accordance with the determination of the Business Committee, this bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): I move, That the Severe Weather Emergency Legislation Bill be now read a third time.

This bill makes urgent direct amendments to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002, the Local Government Act 2002, the Resource Management Act 1991, the Food Act 2014, and the Food Regulations 2015 to provide immediate relief to those people and communities affected by the severe weather. This will support recovery and provide authorities with the powers necessary to facilitate an efficient, timely, and effective recovery, and enable all councils to take immediate action to improve resilience to future severe weather events.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank those that put in a submission on this bill, in a short time frame. They enabled us to improve it, which is the point of a select committee, but when it is required to happen so quickly it puts pressure on everyone. And I think the select committee needs to be acknowledged for the way that they’ve worked together to listen to the submitters that worked together to come up with recommendations, the vast majority of which we accepted and were in the Supplementary Order Paper and the committee of the whole House stage.

I also want to acknowledge the whole House for considering this bill in a truncated process, but in a way that enabled everyone to get their views and concerns across but also demonstrate that this whole House supports what is in this bill. The Government plans to bring another bill to this House in the next few weeks to provide for an Order in Council mechanism to modify legislation to support a timely response and recovery. A similar approach was taken following the Canterbury and Hurunui/Kaikōura earthquakes to facilitate an efficient recovery. It is another way we’re supporting those affected by the recent severe weather events. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I wish to join, along with the Minister, in acknowledging the hard work and commitment of all those members of the select committee and officials, in particular, that have worked over the last 24 or so hours in order to ensure that this bill was an appropriate state for it to be able to pass through this House this afternoon. It is testament to, in particular, the officials’ work that this has been possible, and that should be acknowledge for their good work.

I want to acknowledge, also, the communities and those who are still dealing with the issues in response to both flooding and cyclones that affected multiple regions across this country. The purpose of this legislation is to put in place actions that will support recovery of those regions. It is important that this House has come together, across party lines, in order to ensure that this meaningful legislation is passed in a timely manner.

It is testament to those communities and those members of our communities and, in particular, those members of our local government that have and continue to work day in, day out in order to provide support to many people that are hurting and will continue to hurt for the many weeks and months ahead.

Hopefully, when one reflects back on the process that has been demonstrated over the past few days, we can look and ensure that this has been an effective process. It has achieved an outcome which will provide a positive impact for our communities and our country. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I won’t keep the House long. In terms of the next bill, I guess there are quite a few outstanding issues. It was interesting to hear the Minister for the Environment talk about the slash issue and how that might be dealt with. But I think one of the other issues that I know Gisborne District Council is very keen to be dealt with is the whole issue of annual plans. There was nothing in this bill that really provides assistance to the council when it’s trying to enter the recovery phase and the major changes to funding that will be required in terms of the repairs to infrastructure—ordinary programmes within its long-term plan and annual plan. In their submission, they asked that there be amendments to the Local Government Act 2002 to deal with the annual plan process so that it can become more of a recovery plan. I’m sure the Minister is aware of that, and I hope that the next legislation—not just for Gisborne District Council but others—will provide some flexibility around the annual plan process and budgets to take cognisance of those issues and provide the flexibility that’s needed there.

I was disappointed that the Minister for the Environment didn’t make any commitment to the quite large—over half a billion dollars, something like $600 million—budget of the Ministry for the Environment providing any assistance to those small affected councils. Again, like Gisborne, which has got one of the areas that has real challenges around incomes in the region and affordability. It has a low rates take, so it’s got limited compliance staff, only two for forestry—that there cannot be some funding made available through Vote Environment to assist these smaller councils to actually monitor how those permitted activity provisions play out, given the quite sweeping provisions there in terms of the scope of permitted activities and the large areas that they apply over, so that we do have good resource management because there’s a good understanding of what’s happening where and its effect, and not just relying always on good faith and trust. So I hope that the Government reconsiders that, and perhaps provides more funding assistance to the Environmental Protection Authority so it can stand alongside those councils to deal with any compliance issues.

I recognise that everyone has tried hard in the limited time available to improve this bill, and I underline the thanks to submitters, to officials, to Parliamentary Counsel, to respond to a lot of the submissions, and the collegial process that the House and the select committee adopted.

I would just, finally, comment that we have a climate emergency. It would be very good if the same spirit of collegiality and applying our collective intelligence could be brought together to tackle that instead of the opposition, the sniping, given the seriousness of the climate emergency and the need to do things urgently. I wish this Parliament would apply its collective intelligence to that in the same way that it has applied it to this legislation. Kia ora.

SIMON COURT (ACT): So what have we learnt from the past 72 hours since this bill was introduced to the House—a day in the select committee, and then this afternoon? Well, what we’ve learnt is that three waters reforms, which were passed last year in the form of the Water Services Entities Act, prevented councils from renewing and upgrading infrastructure that was damaged by severe weather, that local councils and asset owners have told the Government this and told the Finance and Expenditure Committee this last year, and that the Government failed to acknowledge that in the legislation, which means that there is a remedy included in this bill which will allow councils to make investments in fixing water treatment plants, sewage treatment plants, and all kinds of other pipe networks and infrastructure that they must repair and fix before the transition to the water services entities on 1 July 2024.

So this was always known, and this bill corrects that very, very poor piece of legislation. But the ACT Party says it doesn’t go far enough. The transition to the three waters entity should stop. It should cease until a thorough review of the three waters reforms—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): Can I just bring the member back to this bill.

SIMON COURT: —certainly, Madam Speaker—has been carried out. What we’ve also learnt is that the Resource Management Act (RMA) amendments proposed in this bill are weak and inadequate and don’t go anywhere near far enough. They’re limited to only allowing works to take place as permitted activities on rural land and on land that is Māori purposes zoning. It excludes commercial and residential land, and it’s commercial and residential land where businesses operate and where people live, and that land is not included. That is a real disappointment to the ACT Party.

The bill as amended and dropped on the Table this afternoon also includes an extra page and a quarter of numerals which will require people doing work on their land in response to the severe weather event—whether they’re cleaning up slips, whether they’re putting roads and tracks in—to get consent and permission from iwi and hapū 20 days before the activity is undertaken. They’ve got to give notice and then they’ve got to get permission, and then they’ve got to do it in the way that people who don’t own that land believe it should be done.

While I think it’s absolutely important to acknowledge wāhi tapu and sacred sites on private land, it seems completely unreasonable to impose what is essentially a business-as-usual approach to obtaining consent from interested iwi and hapū when what we’re really talking about is cleaning up after a massive weather event where there’s hundreds of thousands of tonnes of silt and debris lying across people’s private property and all over council assets.

So surely there must be a simpler way to identify these sites of significance, particularly wāhi tapu, if they’re not already identified on a property title, and then make sure when you’re doing the digging and you’re driving bulldozers around, that you avoid those sites. And I would have thought that would be a conversation between neighbours, because after an event like this, it doesn’t matter which culture you identify with, which group you identify with, everybody’s in it together, cleaning up. I can only imagine there’s a much simpler way to do it, such as negotiation, identifying who the correct mana whenua are who are responsible for that wāhi tapu or sacred site and getting them around to have a look, kick the tires on it, and come to an agreement. This is a completely unnecessary cultural veto that’s introduced into the bill.

We are also really concerned that there still is the requirement to obtain retrospective consents. As submitters from various councils told the select committee yesterday, this is going to mean having to go through a consenting process to prove why someone should be allowed to do something, potentially months or a year or more after it’s been done, and there’s no likelihood at all that the work is going to be undone. Is the culvert going to be removed from the channel? Is the road going to be moved 2 metres this way and 2 metres that way? Completely unnecessary. Councils have said they don’t want to be tied up in all the red tape. It’s going to cost a lot of time and a lot of money. Councils don’t want to do the consenting and they don’t feel that landowners, or councils’ own asset owners—that part of the council that owns the road or owns the pipes—should have to do it, either. So, again, ACT is very, very disappointed at how timid the Government’s been with these amendments to the RMA.

I just want to bring the attention of the House and people watching to what might have been. What might have been actually is set down in here, ACT’s 15 urgent ideas for recovery. [Holds up document] What we’ve asked for and what we’re proposing in our report back, in our alternative view, is actually that a special economic zone should have been established in Tai Rāwhiti and Hawke’s Bay, which cleared all of the barriers to employment, to immigration, to resource management consenting, cleared all those barriers out of the way, and allowed people to get on with rebuilding in the same ways they did following the special legislation following the Kaikōura earthquake and following the earthquake sequence in Canterbury in 2010 and 2011.

After Kaikōura’s earthquake, when entire hillsides fell down and blocked the main trunk railway line and the main highway between Picton and Christchurch, what they did was they got a whole lot of bulldozers in and they pushed all of that rock into the sea and they widened the coastal platform which would allow the rail and the road to be reinstated very, very quickly and at minimal cost—and, I must say, to a much higher standard, an international standard of resilience when it comes to State highways. Imagine how long it would have taken them to get consent to do that work in the coastal area, to dare to tread a bulldozer track in the coastal area under the existing RMA. So there is nothing in this legislation that will actually make it easier to recover and to reinstate infrastructure.

Again, as I pointed out in the second reading of the bill, Waka Kotahi, KiwiRail, and the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission did not appear at the select committee; we didn’t have a chance to ask them what else should be in this bill. But the ACT Party firmly believes that our 15 urgent ideas for recovery, which include a special economic zone, should have been taken into account. Minister, they were available to download, they were reported in the media, and we would be happy to share with you—any time that you need advice, the ACT Party is here.

So, on that note, I want to say that the ACT Party will support this bill. We understand that there are some good things that will help people out in the short term, but it goes a fraction of the way that the ACT Party would have gone in terms of allowing people affected by severe weather events just to get on and rebuild.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 28 March 2023. Have a safe and relaxing recess.

The House adjourned at 4.53 p.m.