Thursday, 6 April 2023

THURSDAY, 6 APRIL 2023

THURSDAY, 6 APRIL 2023

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

KARAKIA/PRAYERS

KARAKIA/PRAYERS

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.

Visitors

Australia—Deputy Prime Minister

SPEAKER: I’m sure that members would wish to welcome the Hon Richard Marles, Australia’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, and his accompanying delegation, who are present in the gallery.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): Today, the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 2 May. In that week, the annual review debate will continue, with eight Ministers scheduled to appear. Legislation to be considered will include the second readings of the Grocery Industry Competition Bill and the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill, and the remaining stages of the Counter-Terrorism Acts (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Bill. On Thursday, 4 May, there will be a 90-minute special debate on local issues.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Well, looking at the Order Paper, there’s only 13 bills on it, and so a lot of the public are interested to know whether the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill may be up for debate next time we’re sitting.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): I’m sure that the member’s colleagues would have alerted him to just how hard parliamentary select committees are working at the moment and the enormous amount of legislation that will return to the Order Paper when we get back. The member will be among the first people in New Zealand to know when the Kermadecs bill is ready.

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. Ministers have delivered papers.

CLERK:

Government response to Privacy Commissioner’s report Review of statutory authorities for information matching

New Zealand Blood and Organ Service annual statement of performance expectations 2022 to 2023.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the petition of Tom Shanley

report of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Leon Gibson.

SPEAKER: The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.

CLERK:

Annie Oxborough Birth Parents Registration Bill, introduction

Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Voting

Correction—Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Exemption for Race Meetings) Amendment Bill

MAUREEN PUGH (Junior Whip—National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Last night, the National whips held proxies for all National members in favour of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Exemption for Race Meetings) Amendment Bill. Unfortunately, due to an administrative error, these votes were not cast on behalf of the members not in the Chamber. I seek leave for those 25 votes to be added to the Ayes and the result of the vote adjusted accordingly, and will supply the names of the proxies to the Clerk to include in the result.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There—

Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to the point of order, I don’t want to object, Mr Speaker; I just want to, because I wasn’t in the House last night, understand whether that affects the result of the bill. No, it doesn’t? OK, that’s fine.

SPEAKER: OK. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? Appears to be none. The result will be corrected.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement on Radio New Zealand last month that “we’re not going to let low and middle income people particularly suffer at the hands of the high inflation we’re seeing”; if so, is he delivering on that commitment?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I stand by my full statement, “We move into a phase where we do see government spending overall reduce, but at the same time we’re not going to let low and middle income people particularly suffer at the hands of the high inflation we’re seeing—so it’s tricky, everyone acknowledges that.” To the second part of the member’s question, yes, in particular the changes that came into effect on 1 April that will see pensioners, veterans, students, workers on a minimum wage, and families receiving Working for Families all better off.

Nicola Willis: How can he claim to be delivering for low and middle income New Zealanders when Canstar’s Consumer Pulse survey for 2023 found that one in four Kiwis say putting food on the table is their biggest worry?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we’ve discussed many times in the House in recent times, there are particularly tough times for many New Zealand families. That’s why, as I said, we were focused on lifting the incomes of low and middle income families through, for example, the 1 April changes I just mentioned.

Nicola Willis: Well, isn’t it the case that a family with two school-aged kids on an average household income of $117,000 a year will likely get nothing from the Government’s 1 April changes because they’re not eligible for Working for Families?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Obviously, the circumstances for each person is different. There are other benefits such as the accommodation supplement that might apply in the situation that the member has raised. What I do know is that the focus that we’ve had on lifting the incomes of low and middle income New Zealanders, including through lifting Working for Families tax credits, has been opposed by the National Party.

Nicola Willis: How will those changes support a family with a $600,000 mortgage who need to re-fix it from an average rate of 2.6 percent two years ago to a 6.4 percent rate today, costing them approximately $440 more every week?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Again, obviously, individual circumstances for families would have to be taken into account to be able to answer the member’s question precisely. What I do know is that if those people are in work they would have been part of an economy where we’ve seen average annual wages rise by over 8 percent.

Nicola Willis: Does he accept that it doesn’t matter how many new payments he designs, the underlying issue in our economy is rampant inflation—higher than that in Australia, the United States, Canada, and many other countries we like to compare ourselves with, and what will his Budget do to address the underlying drivers of inflation?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It’s good that the member is focused on the underlying drivers of inflation—for example, decarbonising our economy, making sure we’re less reliant on the price of petrol, for example. For what happens in New Zealand would require a Government to actually act to start reducing emissions, which this Government did, and the previous Government didn’t. We also have got the work we’re doing around grocery competition, which I mentioned would be coming up in the next term of the House. These are the underlying causes of inflation. The Government continues to make sure that we support New Zealanders through tough times, and again I say, whenever we propose something to do that, the National Party oppose it.

Nicola Willis: Does he accept that New Zealand is now suffering higher inflation and interest rates than many other countries because we embarked on a larger programme of money printing, because his Government is spending more, and because it has failed to act on immigration settings?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In terms of one of the various questions within there, what we did during COVID was important to make sure that not only we saved lives but we also saved livelihoods and businesses. And as I noted to the member during the annual review debate earlier this week: actually, more often than not, when the official cash rate started to go up it was the National Party who were asking us to spend more money, including an $11 billion tax cut package that would have favoured the most wealthy in our society.

Nicola Willis: When will he take responsibility for his inaction on inflation, letting it rip through Kiwis’ household budgets and forcing the Reserve Bank to deliver their 11th official cash rate hike in a row yesterday—yet another punch in the guts to New Zealanders?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is well aware of who it is who is responsible for setting the official cash rate. In 2016, her mentor, Bill English, in response to questions, said, “It is the responsibility of the Reserve Bank. Our job, through fiscal policy, is to support New Zealanders through tough times.” We are doing that. Every time we have proposed something to do that, the National Party has opposed it.

Question No. 2—Social Development and Employment

2. ANAHILA KANONGATA‘A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has she seen on the update of hardship grants for dental assistance?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): In December 2022, we increased the amount of non-recoverable assistance lower-income New Zealanders can receive from Work and Income for immediate and essential dental treatment from $300 to $1,000. In the four months following this change, there were 29,349 grants for non-recoverable financial help for dental treatment. This is more than double the number of grants in the same period of 2021-22. This change means that over $20.7 million in financial support has been provided to New Zealanders needing dental treatment—an increase of over $16.7 million on the same time last year.

Anahila Kanongata‘a-Suisuiki: How many people have had to access recoverable assistance for dental treatment?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: If someone needs treatment that is in excess of $1,000, they may be eligible for a recoverable grant from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). I’m pleased to say that while the number of people who have accessed non-recoverable assistance has doubled, the people who have needed recoverable support has fallen by over 1,000 people. This means more people are getting help, less people are getting into debt, and the change is working.

Anahila Kanongata‘a-Suisuiki: Have there been any changes to the criteria for the grants?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Yes. We have widened the criteria for the grant. Now, instead of the grant only being available in an emergency treatment, it will now be available for essential treatment to help stop minor problems becoming major ones. We have also changed the amount of times you can access the grant throughout the year. Previously, you could only receive one dental grant, even if it did not reach the $300 limit. Now, clients can access the grant multiple times in one year, up to the value of $1,000, meaning if you have a treatment that costs $400, you still have $600 you can access if another necessary treatment is required.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she believe anyone should go into any form of debt because they need to access essential healthcare; if so, why?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: It’s really important that we provide financial support to people who need it. Those on the lowest incomes struggle to pay for dental care. I’m really proud of the fact that we have lifted that grant, which hadn’t been increased for many years. When they require more, then it is an opportunity for them to be able to get that but pay it back, and MSD works with them to make sure that they can afford the payments that they have to make.

Anahila Kanongata‘a-Suisuiki: Have there been any other changes to hardship support?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: In Budget 2022, we also announced a lift in the income-limits access to hardship support. This means more low-income people will be able to access hardship assistance, including dental grants.

Anahila Kanongata‘a-Suisuiki: Why was extending this support important?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Dental care is something that can be put off by people due to affordability difficulties, especially in low-income households. We also know that issues with dental health have a negative impact on people’s general health, financial health, ability to work, and quality of life. This is particularly important when it comes to employment. Having bad oral health can decrease someone’s confidence and affect their ability to secure long-term sustainable employment.

Question No. 3—Housing

3. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister of Housing: What advice has she sought, if any, on the impact of rising interest rates on housing costs?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Housing: I receive a range of advice from my officials. This includes advice and information on the impact of interest rates on potential buyers, existing homeowners, and investor activity, and the impact of economic headwinds—which also includes the rising interest rates—on residential development and construction.

Chris Bishop: Has she sought an estimate on the increased number of borrowers in mortgage arrears due to the increase in the official cash rate yesterday, given that as at the end of February, there were 18,900 mortgages on which borrowers had missed payments?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, I believe that the advice, indeed, on mortgage arrears is that that has increased in recent times.

Chris Bishop: How does she expect a young family that borrowed heavily to get into their own home just two years ago will cope with hundreds of dollars a week more in interest costs?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, it will be very challenging for a number of households, as we’ve covered in this period of time recently in the House. What I do know is that if those people are in work, they will have been in receipt—in many cases—of wage increases, some of which have been in excess of inflation.

Chris Bishop: What modelling, if any, has she commissioned in relation to the impact on rents of the continued implementation of the removal of interest deductibility for residential landlords, allied with rising interest rates?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, I’m not sure if modelling is required necessarily by the Government when a lot of it is done, including the Kantar survey, which has already been quoted in this House.

Chris Bishop: So has she seen any modelling from the Kantar survey or otherwise that suggests that rents will continue to rise as a result of the accelerating removal of interest deductibility, allied with rising interest rates?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There’s a variety of reasons why people will increase rents, which, I might say, have increased under the rate of inflation in recent times. The Kantar survey indicated that just over a quarter of landlords were citing changes to property tax law, but many others cited other reasons for why they might increase rent.

Question No. 4—Health

4. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What improvements have been made in Taranaki for patients requiring renal services?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): I was lucky enough to officially open the new renal unit at Taranaki Base Hospital last month. The renal unit, Te Huhi Raupō—a name gifted by Ngā Iwi o Taranaki and Taumaruroa—is an amazing new facility that will play a key part in the lives of renal patients and their whānau. Te Huhi Raupō was built as part of Project Maunga stage two, the redevelopment of the Taranaki Base Hospital campus, in order to be able to deliver models of care in modern facilities.

Angela Roberts: How will the new renal unit provide improved care to patients?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The new single-storey timber building has 10 patient treatment chairs, two training rooms to help patients learn to carry out their own care, an isolation room, and a self-care room. I know from my time working in dialysis units that convenient access to integrated health services is important for people who have to spend several hours a week in these facilities. The addition of three out-patient rooms means the facility can now accommodate other services, such as social work, dieticians, podiatry for patients with diabetes, and also provide wraparound care.

Angela Roberts: How has the renal unit been supported by the community?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: There’s been a great community support for this project. The Taranaki Health Foundation has fund-raised audiovisual equipment and an ultrasound; I acknowledge their support for this project. The landscaping outside the unit was a real community effort, with most of the plants, topsoil, and mulch donated by excellent local businesses. The work to complete the gardens was done by volunteers from the Lions Club, Downers, and New Plymouth District Council. I think we can all agree that these kinds of contributions are fantastic.

Angela Roberts: How was the project funded?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Project Maunga is funded by a partnership approach between the Crown, regional fund-raising, and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority—EECA. The Project Maunga stage two totals $403 million; this consists of $397 million in Crown funding, $5.3 million in Taranaki fund-raising, and $1.2 million from EECA.

Question No. 5—Health

5. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: Is the emergency department qualifying attendance data published by Health New Zealand this week different from the corrected ED data that she advised the House on 14 March 2023 was the correct data; if so, what are the differences?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Yes, the statistics I was referring to on 14 March are different to what was published on 4 April. For the data published on 4 April, across the 12 measures, there are minor shifts in the reported numbers. I am advised that this is normal due to data in national collections continually being updated as patient records are processed. This means that the same analysis performed a week later will have slightly different results. For two measures—emergency department (ED) admissions and emergency department presentations—Te Whatu Ora’s checking process identified underlying issues with the flow from Southern, West Coast, Waikato, and Counties Manukau. These types of updates have occurred in the past and will occur in the future when working with administrative data. Minor shifts in emergency department presentations impact the ED qualifying attendance data. This has been rectified in the republished metrics.

Dr Shane Reti: How can Kiwis have any confidence in this Government’s health reforms if the new centralised health system can’t even perform simple tasks like publishing accurate and consistent ED wait times?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: As I said to the House in my initial reply to this question a few weeks ago, this type of administrative data reflects real-world data collected in the health system, and there will be minor changes in it from time to time. Now, the sum total of these changes is less than 2 percent when you look across the “Shorter Stays in ED” statistics. I wouldn’t be fussy about a 2 percent difference if I was a party who had just had to correct the casting of 73 percent of their votes!

Dr Shane Reti: Is she calling a difference of 4,502 patients between the two datasets at Counties Manukau minor and insignificant?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: No, but I think that when you look across—what I am saying is that, with these types of administrative datasets, corrections occur all the time, and that is part of the usual publishing of these types of statistics, as I explained to him previously in the House.

Dr Shane Reti: When she wrote that having eight ED beds out of commission for up to 10 weeks due to a leak at Waikato Hospital is having no impact on patient wait times, does she seriously expect New Zealanders and staff to believe that?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The particular performance of that emergency department—those updated statistics—will be published in due course.

Dr Shane Reti: Doesn’t it show that she has done absolutely nothing to fix Middlemore ED from June last year, when the independent inquiry into a death said Middlemore ED was overcrowded and unsafe, through to now, with a leaked staff survey last week showing 81 percent of Middlemore ED staff don’t have the resources to do their job well?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: There have been a number of measures implemented at Middlemore ED to improve the flow there, from the type of senior staff being there right at the front door to assess patients being one of the lead ones so that good decisions are made by those most qualified to make them and in the patients’ best interests. The staff have done an excellent job implementing the recommendations of their report. I stand by their efforts.

Question No. 6—Broadcasting and Media

6. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister for Broadcasting and Media: What announcements has he made regarding funding for world-class public media?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Broadcasting and Media): Today, I’ve announced that we’re delivering a funding boost to deliver world-class public media for New Zealanders. Radio New Zealand (RNZ) will receive a 60 percent increase of $25.7 million annually. This funding will help it meet competing demands and deliver world-class public media for all of Aotearoa. This will be made up of $12 million per annum to address existing capability, $12 million per annum to strengthen RNZ for the future and help it reach underserved audiences, and $1.7 million per annum to support its AM transmission service, which was so important during Cyclone Gabrielle. Without this immediate investment, RNZ would not have the ability to provide the services expected of public media, let alone meet the needs of New Zealanders in a digital age.

Naisi Chen: What support is New Zealand On Air receiving?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The news gets better. We will restore New Zealand On Air’s baseline funding of $42.2 million per annum, which was going to the new public media entity under previous plans. On top of this, New Zealand On Air will receive an extra $10 million to its baseline for 2023-24, and the new funding will support the creation of new and innovative content to connect with new audiences through cross-sector collaboration with RNZ, Whakaata Māori, and Te Māngai Pāho. It will go beyond journalism to include a focus on content for children, rangatahi, Māori, Pacific, and regional audiences. All New Zealand will benefit.

Naisi Chen: Why is this new funding critical for public media in New Zealand?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: An independent, well-functioning, resilient public media is the cornerstone of our democracy. With the package I have outlined, we’ll be able to develop high-quality content that better represents and connects with audiences. We want a public media that delivers for all Kiwis, including Māori, Pasifika, Asia, disabled people, rangatahi, and our tamariki. We can make sure that in a digital age, we’re able to protect our unique Kiwi identity and ensure Kiwis have access to the information and entertainment they need when they need it on the platforms they use. Recent weather events have proved the importance of public media. Without this new funding, RNZ would not be commercially viable because they were starved of funding for nine years by the previous National Government.

Damien Smith: Will he look Kiwis in the eye and tell them he’s proud to be spending tens of millions of their dollars on a shiny new website for Radio New Zealand, and how does he have the nerve to claim as “savings” the cancellation of hundreds of millions of dollars in expenditure on the failed media merger, which he announced in the first place?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yes.

Naisi Chen: What else is being done—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! We’ll have silence for supplementaries.

Naisi Chen: What else is being done to strengthen public media?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: There’s even more. With TVNZ, a clear way to strengthen public media in Aotearoa is for TVNZ to play a more active broadcasting role. And I’ll be sitting down with Simon and the old National Party mates over there and Manatū Taonga. We’re going to just traverse things and work things through with Simon in terms of a way forward. They’re such an important part of our broadcasting ecosystem. We’re looking closely at how Radio New Zealand can collaborate and work with Māori broadcasting. We’ve made a significant investment in terms of Māori broadcasting. How can we work in tandem—in partnership? The RNZ charter review: the Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media Bill included a new charter designed for a modern fit-for-purpose national public media entity. We’ll use that good work to update and strengthen our RNZ charter. And my officials are looking to modernise our outdated Broadcasting Act legislation that the useless National Party put in place.

Melissa Lee: Does the Minister regret spending nearly $12 million on consultants for the failed mega-merger of RNZ and TVNZ, who were not even public media experts, and how has that spending resulted in “world-class public media”?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No.

Question No. 7—Justice

7. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: On behalf of the Minister of Justice, yes, in their context, including statements that address previous statements.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What actions, if any, has she taken to reassure New Zealanders that the Official Information Act legislation is fit for purpose following the recent case of former Minister Stuart Nash deciding not to release documents that were clearly captured by the Act?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I have no information that would suggest that the Official Information Act is not fit for purpose.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What confidence should New Zealanders have in her commitment to the principles of the Official Information Act when she, as a Cabinet Minister, previously texted her colleagues—quote, “if we are being lobbied on issues by colleagues, especially where we haven’t had a yarn, things unfolding through OIA process less than desirable.”?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I didn’t hear the final words of that quote, but I do know, on behalf of the Minister, that she respects and abides by the Official Information Act.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What made her think it could possibly be appropriate for her as a Cabinet Minister to make statements to a State-owned public broadcaster that could be interpreted as telling them how to manage their staff or their company?

Hon DAVID PARKER: On behalf of the Minister, her intention was to speak on behalf of her family. She has made it clear that although she didn’t have responsibilities in the media and broadcasting portfolio, she can understand that other people thought it was wrong to make statements when she was there. Even though not as a portfolio Minister, she was a Minister, and she has apologised for that.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Are there any other instances the Minister is aware of where she has breached the Cabinet Manual, and if so, what are those?

Hon DAVID PARKER: On behalf of the Minister, so far as I’m aware, no.

Question No. 8—Police

8. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister of Police: What recent reports has she seen on the composition of the Police workforce across New Zealand?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): Last week, I attended my very first police graduation as Minister of Police. It was a real honour, and I want to congratulate the 59 recruits who graduated; this is just the start of their journey, one that comes with an enormous responsibility. As of 3 April, there are 10,609 constabulary officers working across New Zealand, helping to keep our communities safe. Since 2017, there have been 3,938 new constables who have graduated from the Royal New Zealand Police College, including this week’s 59 new recruits. After this graduation, the total number of fulltime-equivalent police officers has grown by 1,770 since 2017—an increase of around 20 percent in constabulary numbers. Police are well on track to deliver the 1,800 extra police officers that we promised in 2017.

Arena Williams: How many new officers have joined the service since 2017 in the North Island, and where have they been stationed?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: There are 984 additional police officers in stations right across the North Island since 2017. Of these, 181 are in Central and Wellington; 342 in Eastern, Bay of Plenty, and the Waikato; and 73 in Northland, with 389 across Tāmaki-makau-rau.

Arena Williams: How many new officers have joined the service since 2017 in the South Island, and where are they located?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: There are 230 additional police officers right across the South Island since 2017. Of these, 126 are in Canterbury, 55 in Southern, and 48 in Tasman. As well as these districts, an additional 556 staff are working in the service centres right across New Zealand to keep our communities safe.

Arena Williams: What recent reports has she seen on the diversity of the New Zealand Police Service?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: More than two thirds of the growth in constabulary numbers of employees since 2017 have been in ethnicities other than Pākehā: more than one in five in the growth has been Māori, almost one in five has been Asian, and more than one in five is Pasifika. With 2,725 female officers, more than a quarter of the constabulary employees are women. I believe it’s important that we have a police service that reflects our community. While these numbers are promising, there’s still more good work to be done.

Question No. 9—Local Government

9. SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore) to the Minister of Local Government: What has been the total departmental expenditure to date on Three Waters, and is he confident it has represented good value for money?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): Our Government is setting up water services to make the $180 billion investment that is required to maintain and improve our infrastructure. This is to protect households from otherwise unaffordable costs. The reforms have been under way in earnest since 2020, and, as of mid-March, I have been advised the total departmental expenditure was just over $94 million. To the second part of the question, yes, because what’s not good value for money is maintaining a status quo that no local authority wants or can sustain; what’s not good value for money is leaving rural and provincial districts out in the cold, like what would happen under National’s proposal; and what’s not good value for money is leaving Kiwi households to face water bills that each year climb further beyond their means.

Simon Watts: How can he stand by that answer when, as of December 2022, $57 million has been spent on consultants and contractors for three waters, including over 100 consultants, filling day-to-day positions like personal assistants and data administrators?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Noting that I have written to the CEO of the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) outlining this Government’s expectation that consultants and contractors are used at a minimum, this Government does make no excuses for tackling the issues that this country faces. This country has to find $180 billion. New Zealanders have a clear choice: a policy from this Government that will save them rates over many, many years or putting their head in the sand and ignoring the issue doesn’t exist, like what the National Party have done for five years.

Simon Watts: Can he explain to the House, what value was derived from the $646 per hour paid to a Grant Thornton consultant?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: It’s very clear that when there is reform under way, certain skills that aren’t already in the department are required. It is quite clear, looking across the House, that experts in water services are few and far between. The point here is that this Government is investing in a system that will save ratepayers money. If the National Party dispute that, I have a very clear request of them: show us their numbers—so far, they haven’t.

Simon Watts: How does he justify DIA paying $133 per hour to contract a job description writer, and does he believe that that provided more or less value to the taxpayer than the position description specialist, who was paid $134 per hour?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: The value of this proposition is that it will lead to ratepayers paying less. That is a fact. It is a fact that has been established from councils’ own numbers. It is a fact that has been reviewed by Water Industry Commission for Scotland and peer reviewed twice. The National Party can try and pick at the margins, but what they have failed to show New Zealanders is what their plan is and how that will save ratepayers rates. They haven’t done that because they can’t.

Question No. 10—Police

10. NICOLE McKEE (ACT) to the Minister of Police: Is she concerned that increasing fees for a new firearms licence from $126.50 to $625.60, as proposed in the Arms Regulations: Review of Fees discussion document, will deter potential applicants and encourage the illegal use of firearms, and is she also concerned that increasing the firearms dealers licence fee from $204 to $2,710 annually will impact upon the safe use of firearms within the community?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): Thank you, Mr Speaker. No, because decisions have not yet been made on setting fees for the licensing regime. Fees for a firearms licence haven’t changed in over two decades, during which time the Government has heavily subsidised the practice, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. I think taxpayers would expect this fee to be reviewed after that period of time. In saying this, I’m mindful that we need to have a system that is welcoming to law-abiding firearms users, and I’m committed to having a system that is fair and proportionate. I’ve been advised that Police have received over 6,000 submissions on the consultation document, and I look forward to reviewing these before taking any further decisions.

Nicole McKee: Can the Minister guarantee that proposed increases for visitors’ firearms licences from $25 to a maximum of $470 will not negatively impact upon the small businesses such as hunting guides who host international—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Oh, subsidising hunters?

Nicole McKee: —visitors?

SPEAKER: And whoever that was who was interrupting while that question was being asked needs to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: It is not our intention to encourage firearms licence holders to disengage from the firearms regulatory system, so fees need to be set at levels that neither deter applicants nor encourage retention of firearms without a licence. The Government needs to consider a wide range of options before deciding on the final fees for providing the services sought by licence holders.

Nicole McKee: Does the Minister recognise that the proposal to impose a $590 import fee for those returning home from overseas with a sporting firearm may bring about an end to New Zealanders competing and achieving in shooting sports internationally?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The Government needs to consider a range of options before deciding on the final fees for providing the services sought by licence holders. I look forward to receiving the submissions that have come in and the recommendations I will get from Police.

Nicole McKee: Will the Minister acknowledge that the need for Police to increase fees and to recover costs is a direct result of rushed and ill-thought-out firearms policy implemented by her Government in 2019 and 2020?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The fee has not increased since 1999. Set at $126 for 10 years, that works out to be $12.60 a year. Cabinet will consider submissions and recommendations from Police before determining what fees or firearm licensing should be. Other regulatory systems, such as dog control, have annual registration fees for the privilege of owning a dog, and there is much more involved in assessing if someone is fit and proper for what is involved in administering a firearm.

Question No. 11—Veterans

11. DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) to the Minister for Veterans: What recognition and support is the Government giving to veterans as we look towards ANZAC Day?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister for Veterans: Benefit adjustments that came into effect on 1 April saw more than 5,300 people on a veterans pension, and their whānau, increase their pension by over $100 for a couple per fortnight and nearly $70 for individuals. Veterans’ Affairs, who have more than 20,000 clients, also pay out entitlements of $118 million each year, mostly for those who have service-related conditions, some of whom require rehabilitation and support because they cannot work.

Dan Rosewarne: What does Government do, through Veterans’ Affairs, to support the independence of our veterans?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Veterans’ Affairs also runs a veterans independence programme, which provides a range of services on a needs basis to help veterans stay independent in their own homes. More than 6,500 individuals receive more than 163,000 individual services each year, including lawnmowing and gardening, assistance with housework, and other services, which I know are greatly appreciated by the veterans concerned.

Dan Rosewarne: How does the Government support the commemoration of our veterans’ service?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Veterans’ Affairs manages a commemorative fund and in the current year has paid out tens of thousands of dollars in contributions to a variety of projects. This includes some memorial projects that will be unveiled on or around Anzac Day 2023, including the stand for a memorial gun in Ruatōria, plaques to commemorate service and recent deployments on a memorial archway in South Taranaki, and in support of the Remembrance Army with a project that will add 228 names of New Plymouth Boys’ High School servicemen to the memorial gates at the school. In addition, almost $140,000 has been paid out in the current year in contributions to support veterans to travel back to where they were deployed or for reunions with those they served with.

Dan Rosewarne: What is the Government doing to support the commemoration of Anzac Day in Gallipoli?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On 23 April, the New Zealand Defence Force Gallipoli contingent will deliver a ceremony of rededication and remembrance at what is known as the New Zealand Māori Pā site at the No 1 Outpost in Gallipoli. This ceremony will mark the installation of a plaque in Māori, Turkish, and English, commemorating the service of the New Zealand Maori Contingent at Gallipoli in 1915 and the call to action of the chaplain Captain Hēnare Te Wainohu, “Kia māia, kia toa”—be brave, be bold—before our brave soldiers advanced up Chunuk Bair. The plaque, signage, and access track have been developed in partnership with Māori, the Turkish Government, and the Turkish Gallipoli historical site directorate, and we are very appreciative of their support. I am sure the whole House would join with me in thanking all of our veterans, including the member who asked the question today, Dan Rosewarne, for the service that they have given—and indeed all active soldiers—and, to our fallen men and women as we get closer to Anzac Day, we will remember them, lest we forget.

Question No. 12—Defence

12. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Minister of Defence: Does he stand by his statement that joining AUKUS “could not compromise our legal obligations and our moral commitment to nuclear-free”; if so, does he think that AUKUS is a threat to a nuclear-free and independent Pacific?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence): I stand by my full statement, which was we “would not compromise and could not compromise our legal obligations and our moral commitment to a nuclear-free Pacific.” To the second part of the member’s question, no.

Teanau Tuiono: Does he agree with the Minister of Foreign Affairs that “Our concern is not to see the militarisation of the Pacific, that the Treaty of Rarotonga [is] … upheld”; and, if so, why is New Zealand even considering joining AUKUS?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: A number of things. First of all, the agreement between Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom is a technology agreement. Secondly, both the Minister of Foreign Affairs—the Hon Nanaia Mahuta—and I agree that in the face of militarisation, particularly on the part of China, to the extent of an increase of their military capacity tenfold since 2000, means the circumstances in our region of the world are changing and we cannot ignore them. Finally, this country, with this Government, does have to think carefully about how we ensure we can protect the best interests not only of New Zealand but our Pacific neighbours, working alongside with them.

Teanau Tuiono: Does he agree with the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands that the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal goes against the Treaty of Rarotonga; and, if not, why not?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No, I don’t, because the Treaty of Rarotonga is very clear that it is about the prohibition of, and the removal of, nuclear weaponry from the South Pacific. It does not bear upon nuclear propulsion of vessels such as submarines or ships, and it is nuclear propulsion that Australia has signed up to under its AUKUS agreement.

Golriz Ghahraman: Does he agree with Auckland Peace Action that “Signing up to one part of AUKUS is joining a nuclear arms alliance”; if not, why not?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No, because that’s extremist and alarmist and, frankly, completely ridiculous.

Golriz Ghahraman: Does he agree with former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern that “The focus [of] … our region is on furthering the Pacific values and the focus that Pacific Island leaders have determined for themselves”; if so, does he believe a US-led military alliance which undermines the nuclear-free Pacific upholds Pacific values and independence?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m not aware of a US-led military alliance that undermines the nuclear-free Pacific.

Golriz Ghahraman: Does AUKUS—a military partnership which undermines a nuclear-free Pacific—reflect his Government’s stated commitment to supporting Pacific leadership in facing the climate crisis and inequality, as the key challenges of our region?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: This Government is, and was, an early signatory and promoter of the Treaty of Rarotonga since 1985. We stand by that. It follows the adoption by this country of legislation—by a Labour Government—that keeps us nuclear free in all respects. We remain totally committed to that, as I think, actually, pretty much every New Zealander is. We work closely with our partners in the Pacific to make sure that their priorities, particularly their need for resilience against climate change, is a top priority for us. That is why we wanted to ensure that our New Zealand Defence Force remains equipped to respond as quickly as possible to them in their times of need, at a time when climate change is creating more frequent and more intense weather events.

Bills

Severe Weather Emergency Recovery 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 Recovery Legislation Bill.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

We’ll just take a moment and I will ask those members who are leaving to do so quietly and expeditiously, the Hon Andrew Little included—you can’t even hear me! Yeah, please leave.

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

I’d like to thank the members of the Governance and Administration Committee for their bipartisan and collaborative consideration of the bill and, in particular, Ian McKelvie, the chair of the committee, for his steady steering of the ship. I also want to acknowledge and express my thanks to parties across the House for the cross-party support this bill has received. I appreciate the support for the bill’s efforts to support communities impacted by the recent devastating severe weather events.

The purpose of this omnibus bill is to assist local authorities and communities in areas of the North Island affected by Cyclone Gabrielle and Cyclone Hale and the heavy rain events in the upper North Island. I want to acknowledge the widespread and ongoing impacts of the damage on so many Kiwis and the communities that they live in.

I was heartened that the expressions of cross-party support for the bill during the first reading speeches were carried through into the work of the committee. The committee backed up the similar efforts on the Severe Weather Emergency Legislation Act. Its thorough and careful deliberations mean that the bill is appropriately placed to support Kiwis affected by the severe weather events.

This bill represents a vital part of our commitment to supporting a timely, effective recovery for those affected by the recent severe weather events. It follows on from the recent enactment of the Severe Weather Emergency Legislation Act. This legislation package complements the work done on the ground to assist communities in the immediate aftermath of the severe weather events.

The bill proposes allowing Orders in Council to be used to amend legislation where this would support more timely recovery efforts in affected areas. The flexibility provided by Orders in Council will help communities react more quickly to the range of issues that could arise during recovery efforts in a way that best suits the needs of each community.

The bill contains a range of safeguards to ensure the flexibility provided by enabling Orders in Council is used appropriately. One of the safeguards is a community engagement process on draft Orders in Council that must be followed, barring only the most exceptional of circumstances.

There are also review processes that must occur, including oversight by an independent panel headed up by a former or a retired High Court judge. A draft Order in Council also cannot unjustifiably limit rights and freedoms in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, or amend key legislation forming part of our fundamental democratic and constitutional arrangements. This key legislation includes the Constitution Act, the Electoral Act, and, of course, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. In addition to the safeguards, there are transparency obligations on Ministers to publish the reasons for the making of any Order in Council and to keep any orders made relating to their portfolio under review.

The bill makes amendments to the Local Government Act 2002, the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act, and the Resource Management Act that cannot wait for the Order in Council mechanism by this bill. These amendments ensure those Acts do not unduly impede ongoing recovery effort.

Despite the short process, the committee’s call for submissions from interested parties and the general public received a remarkable 204 submissions. Some of these submitters also made oral submissions. I want to thank all submitters for taking the time to participate in the select committee process and for the efforts they’ve put in to submit their views on the bill in a short time frame.

I’ve heard and wish to acknowledge the substantive concerns raised by submitters that, in their view, the bill is undemocratic and that it grants the Government far greater power than is needed. Submitters were also concerned that the truncated time frame meant that there was insufficient time for submissions to be made and for proper select committee scrutiny.

I want to re-emphasise that these powers are only given to the extent needed to support recovery efforts and are not given lightly, and only because swift action is needed to support and enhance communities’ recovery efforts. The Order in Council process is the most efficient way to do this. The bill is modelled on legislation passed after other emergencies such as the Hurunui-Kaikōura earthquake. The framework for the exercise of these powers remains broadly similar to their exercise in those situations, but some improvements have been made. For example, there is no ouster clause, which means courts retain the power to test the Minister’s recommendations and decisions. With great power comes great responsibility, which is why the safeguards I’ve just outlined are designed to ensure these powers are carefully and appropriately exercised.

I also wish to acknowledge the points raised by my colleagues in this House during the first reading of the bill, regarding the number of members on the panel. The bill allows for up to 12 members, and there was concern that this was too many. In my opinion, up to 12 members is about right, considering the geographical spread of the affected areas and the range of knowledge, expertise, and experience to be represented on the panel. The panel can sit in divisions to ensure it can effectively and efficiently review the draft Orders in Council.

This bill is just one aspect of the recovery, and I note that the Government has committed to ensuring local perspectives are included in recovery, including those of iwi and Māori.

Because the select committee period was so short, the committee reported the bill back to the House un-amended. However, the committee did make recommendations for improvements in their commentary on the bill. I intend to propose a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) to address some of the issues raised by submitters and to incorporate some improvements suggested by the committee.

The SOP adds the Manawatū-Wanganui Regional Council, trading as Horizons Regional Council, and the Wellington Regional Council, trading as Greater Wellington Regional Council, to the list of local authorities affected by the severe weather events. This recognises that sufficient damage has occurred in parts of territorial authorities that fall within their regional boundaries. Adding these regional councils to the list will allow them to amend their regional plan documents where needing to, for example, enable flood protection or bridge repair works.

I’ve looked carefully at the membership of the panel. The purpose of the panel is not to provide representation of various interests, but to bring the knowledge, experience, or expertise in the matters listed to bear when considering draft Orders in Council. Another requirement set out in the SOP would mean the Minister responsible for panel appointments would also have to consider appointing members with expertise in health protection; primary industries; emergency management, including resilience; and rural interests. The Minister will also need to consider appointing members with local perspectives of Māori communities in the affected areas, including mātauranga Māori, tikanga Māori, iwi, and hapū.

The SOP also ensures that Orders in Council can only deal with new subject matter if doing so is reasonably necessary to achieve the purposes of the order and that orders are no broader than geographically necessary. The relevant Minister must now provide draft orders to the Regulations Review Committee in all circumstances, unless Parliament is dissolved or has expired, and the Minister can extend the time frame for comments from the Regulations Review Committee.

I consider the changes proposed in this SOP will enhance the protections in the bill against the inappropriate making of Orders in Council and will allow for the right balance to be found in respect of panel composition.

Finally, I note that the committee strongly supported a review of the bill, once enforced, to more fully scrutinise the powers granted under it, given the short time frame in which the bill has progressed. I acknowledge this proposed method of parliamentary oversight and invite the appropriate select committee to conduct such a review at the most suitable time after the bill comes into force. I look forward to this House’s contribution during the committee of the whole House stage, and I’m pleased to commend this bill to the House.

SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I intend to use this second reading speech to address the issues the Governance and Administration Committee considered during the course of its quite brief but lengthy—lengthy in time—hearings.

I’ll start today by making a few observations about the process used to introduce and process this urgent piece of legislation, which came in for some critical scrutiny from both submitters and some sectors of the media. That criticism was to some degree warranted. However, no one came up with a better way of expediting this process for the benefits of those affected. Frankly, I believe, as a select committee and as a Parliament, we’ve come to the best position possible on this. I also believe that members of Parliament come to Parliament with a very strong idea of making people’s lives better, and this is a great example of this Parliament coming together in an attempt to make people’s lives better. Admittedly, those people are suffering some significant challenges at the moment.

I could not stand here to talk today without thanking all those who worked their way through making this bill what it is today and put in place a piece of legislation that will benefit the areas and people affected by the weather events of February. The committee staff, under our minder Tui, who put in many hours to assist us to get to this point, and especially Hannah, who must have listened to every word that was said and captured them in a very good report. To our officials, who put the great effort in over the past three or four weeks, actually, developing two bills—not one but two—to deal with this emergency situation, I thank them as well. They did an amazing job, and I think it’s really interesting to have a group of officials who are very prepared to cooperate with the select committee.

I think, during the course of those hearings, we addressed most of the concerns raised by submitters—not necessarily how the supporters would want us to, of course. I hope in saying that, that those submitters are more comfortable with the process than they were at the time that submissions were called for. I also want to thank those submitters who made the effort under extreme urgency to provide the select committee with some very good submissions which helped shape this bill as it has come back to Parliament.

It interested me, however, that some submitters made a significant effort with very little resource to provide us with very good information and very good submissions, and others appeared to use the process as a grandstanding exercise, basically, to criticise the Government for the urgency required to act in this instance. I think that’s very disappointing, particularly as those organisations tend to be well resourced.

I’ve probably said in this House before that I was the Mayor of the Manawatū at the time of the 2004 flood event which devastated our region, and I know that any help forthcoming gives local communities great hope and it also gives local communities, I think, hope that someone in Wellington cares. I think it’s important that this House puts in place a piece of legislation that will assist quite a large number of people in those communities. I think that is the least we can do. The fact that it’s done under urgency and with comparative haste, I think, also signals the importance of this issue to this House, and, in fact, the importance of it to those people concerned.

I must also thank the select committee and our two adopted members—Eugenie Sage and Simon Court—who may not agree entirely with the position we ended up in but, none the less, added great value to the discussions. I also thank Minister McAnulty for tolerating many of the sentiments we expressed, and addressing them in his second reading speech.

I’ve no fears the seemingly unwarranted power we’re granting to Ministers will be abused, and I’m confident that local communities will benefit greatly from the enactment of this legislation. It also means roads, bridges, water pipes, houses, farms, orchards, and even railway lines will be reinstated much quicker as a result of this bill.

I think the important thing to remember in the course of the reinstatement—and these Orders in Council will largely deal with reinstatement—is that they’ll be reinstated in the same place they were before. So the fear that the Resource Management Act, for example, will be abused in the course of this, in my view, is minimal, and we have taken one or two other safeguards in the course of the alterations to the bill to manage that.

As I’ve said, we had many constructive submissions, and a number expressing concerns about the lack of communication with Māori. We’ve endeavoured to address this matter where appropriate. However, most of those concerns raised by submitters, in relation to the lack of communication with Māori, relate to the emergency response, not the emergency recovery. We’ll take the opportunities at select committee to raise these issues on their behalf with the appropriate parties as they all report to our select committee either through annual reviews or whatever. So there will be an opportunity for us to take those up at a later date.

Back to the bill. On the changes the select committee has made: we introduced one more safeguard with respect to the ability to make Orders in Council, and that was to ensure that geographical areas, where appropriate, are defined. The reason for that is that there’s—and I think the most obvious one—the need, or there may be the need in some cases, to burn waste, for example; there may be no other way to do it. You wouldn’t want that Order in Council to stipulate that waste could be burnt and that it could be burnt all over New Zealand, because it will almost certainly be specifically for one area. So I think that was an important change to make.

As the Minister said, the Manawatū Regional Council or Manawatū-Whanganui Regional Council, or Horizons Regional Council, as it’s known, and the Wellington Regional Council both added to the bill because a number of their constituent councils declared civil defence emergencies during the course of those events, and, of course, it would be difficult for the regional councils to not have been included in this bill, because quite a significant amount of those damaged assets actually affect regional councils as well as district councils. So that was necessary.

Another very interesting discussion we had related to the need to consult the leaders of previous Parliaments’ political parties. This comes about, of course—and it’s most appropriate now—in that this Parliament will dissolve for a time for the general election, and there will be no committees in force. And because the Orders in Councils are automatically referred to the—oh, I’ve forgotten the name of the committee—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Regs Review.

IAN McKELVIE: —the Regs Review, thank you, Gerry—the Regs Review Committee, that committee won’t be sitting while Parliament’s in adjournment, and it’s highly likely, I think, that these Orders in Council will be made at that time. So the need to have a body that represented this Parliament that could peruse those needed to be put in place. It was decided that the leaders of those political parties in the previous Parliament—so the Parliament’s adjourned, the leaders of the political parties in the previous Parliament then, effectively, take the place of the Regulations Review Committee until the new Parliament is convened. So that was necessary because you had to have some reference point for those Orders in Councils.

The other issue was amending clause 13(3)(a) to add to the list of matters the Minister must consider in appointing members of the review panel. That was extended to health, rural interests, and primary industries. I guess those terms were used because they—certainly, the health one was an interesting one, and I’m sure there’ll be other committee members to talk about that more later on this afternoon. So that was a change that, I think, was very useful.

Finally in this speech, I just want to talk briefly about the discussions we had with submitters, and amongst the committee, about how we could improve this process for the future. I think that the committee came firmly to the view that a more permanent piece of legislation needs to be developed which would never be the perfect platform, because disasters are all different, but, none the less, it would be a base from which the Parliament could then develop legislation in the event of future emergencies—and there’s no doubt there’s going to be plenty of them. But I think that that would allay the fears of submitters that we’re giving, effectively, what you might term as “unbridled power” to the executive. It would have to be altered per event, but, none the less, the base legislation would be there, and I think that the public would have some confidence that at least the base legislation has been given adequate scrutiny—or scrutinised in the appropriate manner—and so, therefore, it would give the public more confidence that what we’re doing in the future was good.

The National Party provide an alternative view in the committee report, and outline some of the changes which, with more time, we would have liked to have seen made in the bill. This will not, however, stop us from supporting the bill. I think, despite the fact that the system’s never perfect, this bill, for all intents, will be of great value to those areas affected by the disasters of the last few months. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to take a call on the Severe Weather Emergency Recovery Legislation Bill. The Green Party really supports the objectives of the bill in terms of assisting communities and local authorities and facilitating recovery in the areas affected by Cyclone Hale and Cyclone Gabrielle and the Auckland anniversary weekend storm, but we won’t be supporting the bill, because of the major override on the powers of Parliament.

Starting where Mr McKelvie, as chair of the Governance and Administration Committee, finished, I note there is a real need to develop a framework for how the Parliament responds and how the Government responds to ensure that decisions are made during a recovery which are expedited, but without the major executive override of the Parliament which this bill involves. I know that in response to Hurunui, Kaikōura, and Canterbury, there was some discussion of this and there was a decision not to proceed with the framework for emergency—well, for recovery response legislation that would provide a permanent framework. But I think the major submissions that we had by a lot of constitutional lawyers, and the New Zealand Law Society—and they described the bill as not being constitutionally appropriate and raising fundamental rule of law issues. Those are serious issues, and I feel, as an MP, quite uncomfortable, the day before a three-week recess, discussing this bill because we have not had adequate time to ensure that it sets an appropriate structure with enough checks and balances on the power of the executive.

So this further work does need to be done on how we as a Parliament respond and what safeguards are bedded in when the executive needs to use Orders in Council. Our concerns, which we expressed while supporting the bill going to select committee at the first reading, remain—that there are nearly 30 pieces of legislation which Orders in Council can amend and modify, including retrospectively back to the start of the weather emergency event, and that one of the most problematic provisions is clause 19, because that enables other pieces of legislation to be added to those which the executive can amend by Orders in Council, and that is being done not by this Parliament but by another Order in Council. So there is a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in my name seeking to have those provisions excised from the bill and consider whether there is new legislation that needs to have Orders in Council made coming back to the Parliament.

There were over 204 submissions, and the majority of those submissions were opposed to the bill. I think, again, that underlines the need for the Parliament to look at a more enduring structure in terms of recovery. Some of the other reasons that we aren’t supporting the bill is that, as submitters noticed, it does largely appear to be for administrative convenience. Everyone wants an expeditious recovery, but officials could not say what Orders in Council are waiting to be done, and if they can’t do that, then the Parliament could’ve had a longer time and potentially be recalled over the three-week recess to deal with this more thoroughly.

There’s the issue of the very broad purpose clause, and then the fact that under clause 8 there’s a threshold for Ministers to make Orders in Council when the order “is necessary or desirable”, and while officials said that that language appears in some other legislation, that legislation is concerned with emergencies. This legislation is concerned with recovery, and as everyone in Canterbury knows, major decisions were made after the earthquakes that are having a significant impact, sometimes beneficial but sometimes—in terms of the major costs of the stadium, half a billion dollars—decisions were made during that framework which are not necessarily for the best interests of the majority of residents.

There are processes which exist in law which enable communities to participate. Those processes ensure that we get a range of opinion informing the decision. When you cut through those processes to act quickly in a recovery, when there are millions of dollars being spent that do not necessarily go to the best decision. So the concern about acting very quickly in an emergency—granted. But in a recovery, there should be “nothing about us without us”—that was a common refrain in Canterbury and equally it applies in Tairāwhiti, Hawke’s Bay, Auckland, and other areas. Communities need to be involved in those investment decisions. So where you slice through processes such as under the Resource Management Act, you don’t necessarily get that involvement.

One of the critical things that we think is missing in the bill is a real focus on ensuring that actions are taken to promote climate resilience and adaptation. So we’re seeking an addition to the purpose to do that, because the investment decisions that are made now, whether roads are repaired to a very, very high standard, means that there are opportunity costs of that. Those funds may not be available to invest in more regional rail, and regional rail is likely to provide both climate benefits and ensure that a lot of heavy traffic is taken off roads. So those sort of priorities are quite critical and we need to go through a consultative process, and our concern is that with Orders in Council there’ll be less of an ability to do that, because consultation is seen as taking too long, so the Orders in Council override that.

One point I do wish to make clear is that some submitters seem to think that the Severe Weather Events Review Panel was all about directing the recovery. It’s not. It’s about reviewing the Orders in Council. There is not a single body as there was in Canterbury that is directing the recovery itself. But this panel is only about the Orders in Council and their content.

There are too many overrides of the basic rule of law. The legislation is going through this Parliament too quickly. There hasn’t been an adequate opportunity to really improve it. There have been some suggestions that submitters made that the committee discussed, which the Minister is taking up in his Supplementary Order Paper because there was not time for a revision-tracked version. But there were a number of other suggestions in submissions that aren’t on that SOP, and I think that accounts for the range of SOPs that you have from members in other parties, including the Green Party.

So the other major issue that we have with this is that the sunset clause of allowing the Order in Council power to go on for five years is too long, that that needs to come back, and that the Parliament have the power to extend the ability for Orders in Council itself, not putting such a lengthy clause in the bill.

There will be major decisions that are made through Orders in Council. One that we have a particular concern about is in the waste space. In Canterbury, it was an Order in Council around the storage, sorting, and processing of earthquake waste at the Burwood Resource Recovery Park. There was not nearly enough emphasis on reuse of houses that were damaged—reuse and recovery and reprocessing of materials. And similarly, there are likely to be significant issues around waste management here. They need to go through a good process so that we are maximising materials’ reuse and recovery, and not just sending everything to landfill. Big issues, and we were pleased with the change that the select committee recommended around potential health impacts with people suggesting that the slash will be burned, and the smoke and respiratory impacts that that will have. So the panel will at least now have to have someone with that health protection expertise.

There have been some additional safeguards, but still there is this fundamental issue with nearly 30 pieces of legislation having Orders in Council that can be developed with some consultation by the Minister, with some scrutiny by the panel, but not enough public engagement. And those who think that the Regulations Review Committee is an effective safeguard should remember that that committee—which I’m a member of—rarely looks at whether Orders in Council meet with the purpose of the Act. They don’t go into any of the substantive policy issues, and it’s the substantive policy issues which some of these Orders in Council may allow that we are particularly concerned with. So the Green Party—despite the very good chairing of Mr McKelvie of the Governance and Administration Committee and the very collegial approach in that committee—cannot support the bill because it raises fundamental rule of law issues, and it doesn’t have enough safeguards.

SIMON COURT (ACT): The ACT Party cannot support this Government’s Severe Weather Emergency Recovery Legislation Bill. It gives the Government “Henry VIII” powers to modify 27 Acts of Parliament for purposes that may go well beyond cyclone recovery. ACT says that that alone is unacceptable and is a reason to oppose this bill—despite all of the good intentions that the Government, ACT, National, and the Green Party had, sitting around the committee table with officials, hearing from submitters and trying to work out what the important things are that people in the Hawke’s Bay, Gisborne, Wairoa, Northland, Auckland, and, of course, the Manawatū-Whanganui region need in order to recover from the cyclone. Well, what ACT said, back on 6 March, “Here are 15 good ideas”—urgent ideas they were on 6 March, only a month after Cyclone Gabrielle hit. None of those ideas has been taken up by this Government.

The committee received high quality submissions: from the Law Society, from the New Zealand Initiative, from constitutional and public law experts, from Federated Farmers, and, of course, from Civil Contractors New Zealand, who represent the people who will actually be doing the work with the diggers, with the trucks, cleaning up silt and demolishing all of those structures and getting ready to rebuild after the cyclones and severe weather. What many of them asked for was, “Please speed it up. Please hurry up. This has taken far too long.” All we have here today is an omnibus bill, a bill that grants extraordinary powers to the Government but actually provides no certainty, no frameworks for economic recovery, no formulas that would help people who are flooded out of their homes in places like West Auckland or Hawke’s Bay understand, if they have to leave their properties, if it’s too dangerous to rebuild, what the formula is that they could expect to see that would help them to understand what compensation they might receive if they have to leave their land and property, where they could go, and, of course, what would make it easier to rebuild, because currently the Resource Management Act makes it very, very hard to consent and build new developments. None of those things is addressed in this bill.

Twenty-seven Acts of Parliament could be amended for any reason, at any time, in the next five years, by a Minister in a Government, with only three days’ review by a panel. Now, ACT suggested—in fact, we provided an amendment, which we hope to debate at the committee of the whole House stage, which proposes to include on that panel representatives from the rural community and people with infrastructure experience. We also proposed that, if there is going to be legislation like the COVID-19 emergency response legislation or the legislation that guided the recovery from the Kaikōura-Hurunui earthquakes and the Christchurch and Canterbury earthquakes sequence, that legislation comes back to Parliament every 90 or so days, at a maximum, for Parliament to debate whether it was actually effective, whether those measures were helping, the costs and benefits, what could be learned, and so that the Government also had an ability to table amendments to its own recovery legislation that it might want to table, and have the scrutiny of Parliament to do that.

What we also propose, through amendments, which came out of submissions we heard at select committee, is to protect private property, because one of the problems that we’ve heard about is that many people, including 50,000 in Auckland, live in homes built on flood plains, and it may not be possible to rebuild in those locations. We’ve been hearing from this Government and from experts and insurance companies about managed retreat, which means some people will have to leave their properties and the homes will have to be demolished, but what we don’t know is how they will be compensated. So that’s why the ACT Party says there needs to be a compensation mechanism, and that needs to be in terms of the existing Public Works Act.

But I just want to come back to the committee stage and the report that the Governance and Administration Committee has provided back to the House and for the people of New Zealand to read. I just want to run through some of the things that ACT felt were important to highlight out of that report. Now, despite declaring a climate emergency in 2020, this Government has done nothing to prepare for the response to the inevitable natural disasters that will befall New Zealand. We’ve had cyclones and storms—in the past two decades, we’ve had severe, devastating earthquakes and landslides that have killed hundreds of people. Large parts of New Zealand will be affected by what could be almost an inevitable earthquake on the Alpine Fault, and of course there are many communities in New Zealand built in places where, historically, tsunami have devastated them—and in fact, wiped out entire communities. And yet there is nothing in this bill; the Labour Government has done nothing since declaring a climate emergency in 2020 to actually deliver legislation that sets out how New Zealand might recover from a disaster in future, when we can all safely assume there will be one.

But that’s not to say the work hasn’t been done. The New Zealand Initiative submitted to the committee, although, as they pointed out, 20 hours to prepare and submit a written proposal—which was all this Government gave them—was not sufficient. They pointed to a document that they prepared in 2018: Recipe for disaster: Building policy on shaky ground. They were referring to how flawed it was that every time there’s a natural disaster, a Government comes along and says, “Don’t worry, we’re going to cook up some new disaster emergency response legislation. Whether we’ve learnt from past disasters or not, here’s something that needs to be passed under urgency”. What the initiative said is, look, post-disaster plans should recognise not only the importance of clarity about the infrastructure rebuild—that’s the roads and other essential utilities—but it should also facilitate organic economic development in a way that the local community wants to; not have it imposed, top-down, from the Government. And that is one of the risks of this legislation: that a Minister with best intentions—or maybe not—could come up with an Order in Council that says “Here’s what a region is going to get.” Would it be a convention centre; a swimming pool; a stadium? Who knows—but how on earth would a Minister in Government know, unless it comes as a direct request from the locals, from local government, or from the regions? That’s what’s missing in this bill.

The Initiative also points out “a recovery agency should be set up expeditiously.” Well, what we do know is that the Government has appointed Sir Brian Roche to go and investigate what needs to happen. Well, there’s a gentleman who has represented the Government and other agencies at the highest level and has competencies around infrastructure, governance, and management, and yet, we haven’t heard from Sir Brian Roche. We haven’t heard from his cyclone recovery working group or committee. We have no idea what is planned in terms of a recovery agency.

What local people—like Gisborne farmer, Charlie Reynolds, who I spoke to this morning—are asking for, Minister, is: please, speed it up. Please provide a framework so that people know exactly what recovery will look like and what their part in it is, whether they are private contractors, rural landowners, homeowners, or business owners; people who own packhouses and orchards. What Charlie Reynolds told me today is that many of his friends who are farmers spent weeks trying to pull stock out of mud, trying to get access back to their farms. They didn’t have internet access, and then it turns out, when they finally got online to apply for the $10,000 that they’ve been told that they will get immediately, it could be weeks and weeks and weeks before they even receive an acknowledgment of their inquiry—because, it turns out, thousands and thousands of people have applied for this funding.

So what ACT would say to the Government is, “Please get on with it.” Please provide some clarity to people who are suffering following these disasters; whether it’s the people in West Auckland who are red-stickered out of their homes, or people of Hawke’s Bay who just want to know whether they’ll be able to keep orcharding and keep packing fruit in the future; even though it’s three years until the trees come back. And what about the people of Northland who are cut off, again, by a massive slip in the Mangamuka Gorge? All of these communities need answers, Minister—this bill doesn’t provide them. ACT says, “Get on with it.”

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): I’m extremely disappointed by the speech that’s just been delivered, and I’ll tell you why. It lacks the sort of electoral ambition that I would’ve thought would’ve been more to the fore from a party like ACT. We could be, in six months’ time, in a situation where, Mr Court, you’re the Minister, so think about that list of things that you’ve just suggested—that Mr Court has just suggested, Mr Speaker—should be done by the Government. What would be the levers that would let him be able to do that? All this bill does is make way for good things to happen for people who need relief and need encouragement and need to be able to be certain about the activities they take for their recovery.

I have listened over and over for a very long time to the people who say this type of bill confers “Henry VIII” powers, it’s a constitutional outrage, etc., etc. Well, it’s Parliament that’s doing it, and that makes a whole lot of their arguments fall to one side. I heard the previous speaker, Ms Sage, saying that this was a dreadful thing and she wants to take out clause 19 because that would allow other Acts of Parliament to be brought into the regime and altered through the Order in Council process. Well, if Parliament decides today that that’s what’s necessary to keep things moving in a recovery, then that is, under our arrangements, constitutionally acceptable. I just get so annoyed by people who sit in their cloistered environments having no idea of what it’s like for people who are on the end of the worst effects of this disaster.

So we are supporting this legislation. There are a number of things in the minority view that the National Party have appended to the Governance and Administration Committee report which make it clear that there are aspects we don’t agree with. There are some things that we would’ve liked, but it would be completely churlish to turn round and say we’re not going to vote for this, and it would be a withdrawal of support for the people who are so adversely affected not only now but will be for literally years to come in the areas that are affected by or covered by this bill.

I was surprised too to hear the suggestion, really from the last two speakers, that decisions that might be made under this bill will be sort of rushed and ill-considered and that that would lead to decisions that were bad and didn’t end up having a great positive outcome. Well, I can think of 100,000 houses, three waters, the media merger, the polytech debacle, health waiting list, and six out of 10 kids not going to school every day—all decisions made under the proper provisions of Parliament and are a mess. So, no system that you might choose to use is going to guarantee that all decisions that are made as a consequence of a piece of legislation are going to be perfect.

I’ve got to say, too, my experience has been that if a decision is made, it creates a degree of certainty. Even if it’s not the best decision, it creates a degree of certainty. If it can go one step further and provide a degree of choice for the people who are on the end of whatever it is that the decision is about, then that makes it just all the more palatable. So I think the idea that we should be having some sort of a perfect piece of legislation is absolute nonsense.

The only thing I’d agree with Mr Court on is that this fails to recognise that there needs to be some single source of accountability for the recovery. At the moment, it’s far too diffused. The member raised the issue of, well, who’s making a decision about managed retreat, for example. It’s a huge issue. It’s got massive effect, potentially, on other parts of New Zealand for all sorts of other conditions geologically that people face in their place of occupation, and it does need to be managed in the context of this disaster so that we don’t get that unintended consequence of all sorts of other things. But there’s nothing clear that you could point to and say, well, that’s where the go-to place is for all of these sorts of problems, and that’s something that would have to be rectified. That’s something you could do, Mr Court, in the future, perhaps, in a role such as this.

For all of its faults, this is a bill that does enable those who have responsibility to move things forward. It is far from a situation where a Minister wakes up in the morning with a good idea, decides to change a piece of legislation, gets it all written up, flicks it through a process, and gets it done, as would’ve been the case under Henry VIII times. It has got layers of accountability in it, and I think those, while they are expeditious, are appropriate to make sure that the people who need this legislation to get on with their lives are able to do exactly that. That’s why we’re supporting the bill today.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Can I thank the Hon Gerry Brownlee for his contributions—other than the gibes in respect of non-emergency recovery achievements of the Government, I endorse his comments.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I didn’t call them achievements.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I beg your pardon?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I didn’t call them achievements.

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, you didn’t call them achievements—a lack of generosity there, given the number of houses we’ve built and progress we’re making on other things like child poverty and reducing carbon emissions. Those are, of course, all irrelevant to this bill, as were the member’s comments.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Talk to me, Mr Parker.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I thank the select committee for the improvements that they’ve made to the bill, particularly, making it clear that the review panel should be chaired by a High Court judge. I think that the panel including a High Court judge gives it more credibility. I think New Zealanders can be satisfied that they’ll guard the proper boundaries of orders being necessary in terms of the purpose of the legislation.

I do share a little concern that, as we base these emergency responses on the last emergency response, the lists of enactments that are affected in Schedule 2, which now lists 29 Acts directly and then makes reference to others, seems to grow ever longer and doesn’t ever seem to be pruned.

Perhaps agencies can have a look at that outside of the exigencies of an emergency and think about whether, for example, you need to include the Land Transfer Act in an order such as this. I understand what the Land Transfer Act was included post-earthquakes in Canterbury, because there was an issue as to what you did for boundary adjustments. I’m not sure that that was under the Land Transfer Act or survey legislation, but I do think that we have to take care that we’re not unnecessarily extending the ambit over which the Orders in Council can be passed amending the primary legislation, because it something that should be done sparingly, only when necessary, and conferring the power on the executive to do it ought to be constrained to the extent reasonably possible.

That said, I also endorse the Hon Gerry Brownlee’s comments and, I’m sure, Minister McAnulty’s comments as well, that this is necessary to do at speed in order for the recovery steps to be taken.

In respect of my own responsibilities as Minister for the Environment, there are two obvious examples of where it’s likely to be necessary to have Orders in Council. One is to override some plan provisions requiring consents. We’ve had this discussion in this House about how the current plans in the area prohibit absolutely the burning of tanalised materials. You can’t avoid that in some circumstances, when you’ve got a pile of debris, which includes the occasional fencepost that’s tucked in the middle that you can’t see, it’s just not practical to enforce that rule in this context. So there’s likely to have to be an Order in Council enabling that if there’s not some other route to enable it already in the Resource Management Act or in the local plans.

The other one is that we’re going to have to, on occasions, truncate plan-making processes, where we’re going to have to rezone land either for or against use. Those processes have a lot of public participation and time baked into them—which is appropriate, given that the affect local people’s private and public property rights—but, sometimes, in a situation such as this, you have to move a bit more speedily in order to create the recovery opportunities for the populations that have been affected by these severe flooding events. So those are two examples where I think Orders in Council are likely to be necessary.

In respect of the point that the Hon Gerry Brownlee made about who makes the decisions about managed retreat if that does prove to be necessary in some of those issues, Cabinet takes those decisions. I can assure the House that Cabinet is well alert to the public and private interests involved and the complexity of those issues, the effect that that can have on people’s lives, and the possible precedent effect. So all of those issues are and will be carefully considered. Accordingly, I endorse this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I concur with the last speaker, David Parker, and also Gerry Brownlee’s speech in that there are a number of people that want a fast, efficient Government to actually do something to help them in their time of need. And that’s why the National Party is supporting this bill—

Simon Court: Well, it’s only two months to bring this legislation to the House.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: —and it needs to happen in that manner. The ACT member has just said something there, and I agree with a lot of what he said, actually, in his speech, but the reality is that when you’re a Minister in these kind of situations, 80 or 90 percent of the decisions you’d make would be the same as a reasonable person, whatever colour party you were. They are just the reasonable decisions that need to be made to help people in time of need and to rebuild. It’s not about policy dimensions necessarily. If the road to Coromandel needs rebuilding, it needs rebuilding, and that’s the reality of it. And I don’t believe that in the New Zealand Parliament those kinds of situations would be taken in a context which would be misused in that sense. So we have faith in the Labour Ministers to make those right calls, just like we expect them to have faith in us and ACT and Green and New Zealand First or whichever Ministers there may be in the future that have to make those calls at another point in time. That’s the reality of having a small Parliament and a small country—that you can actually enable that to happen.

In saying that, though, the ACT member did raise some really good issues around what we actually look at as a country about resilience. These events probably started with Christchurch as the major event that nobody had anticipated. And then you’ve got the Hawke’s Bay and Gisborne at the moment. The next one will come and it may be weather related, it may actually be biosecurity related, it may be something else, but there is something else that will come and it’s not necessarily climate change. It may be some other thing that happens, and we are not resilient as a country. We do not have plans around that, and that’s really the point, I think, the ACT member was getting across. And I agree with that 100 percent. We do not think of those things here. It’s OK to have plans of rebuild and suchlike, but we have got some foreseeable risks in this country and some risks which you can’t foresee, and I would put Christchurch in the unforeseeable sort of category. Nobody thought that was going to happen to that degree. But there are some foreseeable risks, especially around this city, that we know will happen at some point. Are we resilient around that? No, we’re not; not at all. There are foreseeable risks around the connection between Auckland and Whangārei. Are we resilient around that? No, we aren’t. There should be a decent road there and people shouldn’t have to go through little tracks to join one of our biggest cities to our major city.

Those resilience issues need to be agreed upon. That’s really what this shows. We trust Kieran McAnulty and his team to make the right calls in this case, and we will give the people of the Hawke’s Bay and the Gisborne the support they need for that Minister and other Ministers to make the right calls. We will do that. But at the same time, New Zealand needs to work out what we’re actually going to do about resilience for Northland, what we’re going to do around resilience here for our Governments, and those sort of things that are foreseeable. They’re there. You can see them. We’ve had enough events happen that you can see how Northland gets cut off from Auckland and there needs to be something done about that.

Tim van de Molen: Waikato cut off from Tauranga.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Now, Mr Tim van de Molen has gone to the next point in my speech, which was the advantage of Hamilton as providing the resilient option of no issues at all! You know, the place that will not flood, the place that will not have an earthquake, and the place that will be the safest place in New Zealand for Governments and such like. But we won’t go there too far because the reality is we’re dealing with serious issues that people are facing in their communities at the moment. But if you were actually looking at resilience, that Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga area is undervalued in New Zealand for what it can do for the resilience of this country.

Ian McKelvie: It’s got the odd volcano.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yeah, it has and, you never know, that may be the issue, as Ian McKelvie says. But that’s the option that we have as a Parliament, which is to look forward and to look at those foreseeable things and try and resolve those. There’s always going to be the unforeseeable that we can’t deal with.

So in this case, we support the Labour Party Ministers and give them the ability to do what they need to do. They don’t need three-year legislation to do that. These things need to be happening in the next couple of months—the big decisions. If you need three years to work this out, then there’s something wrong. Kieran McNulty and his team, I bet you, will have three or four big decisions they need to make in the next couple of weeks and they need to happen now. We don’t need to elongate this too long in the sense of that power base for Ministers. We also need that accountability, and it’s great for David Parker to talk about Cabinet having that role, but we don’t actually know how that would work in practice and we haven’t seen how that would be defined. All we got is Cabinet saying that they’re going to make a decision in the best interests of New Zealanders. That’s not the accountability that actually the Ministers will require by having people that they can put some pressure on to get things done. And it’s not the accountability that the public or this institution actually would require. So for the best interests of actually the Ministers making the decisions now, they need the accountability that Gerry Brownlee talked about to get things done.

So my plea is that this place actually looks at some of those foreseeable risks. We will be doing legislation like this again soon and we don’t know what it’s going to be on. But there are some things that we do know—we have risks in the economy—and we don’t do anything about it. And you can look through a couple of examples that we’ve talked about here now, and that’s really the issue that we should be putting our mind to. This is a done deal. This needs to happen. This needs to give the Ministers the ability to do what they need to do. But the reality is that we’re going to have bigger problems in the future and we need to work out how we deal with those.

Debate interrupted.

Voting

Correction—Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Harm Minimisation) Amendment Bill

TANGI UTIKERE (Chief Whip—Labour): Last night, during the vote on the first reading of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Harm Minimisation) Amendment Bill, the votes of five Labour members were not cast. I seek leave for those votes to be added and the result of the vote adjusted accordingly. I will supply the names of the members to the Clerk; four were opposed and one was in favour.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection?

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s not clear, but were proxies held for those members at the time?

TANGI UTIKERE (Chief Whip—Labour): Speaking to the point of order, yes, I confirm that the five members had proxies that were held.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: So there is none. That vote is corrected and the result is now Ayes 30, Noes 89.

Bills

Severe Weather Emergency RECOVERY Legislation Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a privilege to take the final call in the second reading of the Severe Weather Emergency Recovery Legislation Bill.

I want to begin just by coming back to the intent and the purpose of this bill. The general purpose of it being to assist local authorities and communities in the areas affected by severe weather events, primarily to rebuild and recover from the severe weather events earlier this year. It’s times like this when we need to remember the intent and the reason that we are here as parliamentarians in this House, and that is to represent the people. The comment I want to make on that is that at times like these, the people of Hawke’s Bay, the people throughout the North Island who’ve been affected, they’re not interested right now in party politics; they’re interested right now in recovery and seeing this House come together and act so that they can get on with their lives.

On that note, I want to thank particularly the officials, many of whom have worked tirelessly as we looked at this bill through its process. I want to thank the other members of the Governance and Administration Committee, and those members who joined us for the purpose of considering the bill. And I particularly want to thank the submitters, many of whom gave up a considerable amount of time to submit, and I note that many of them had to do that in a hurry and came to the committee with useful contributions so that we could improve this bill as we have brought it back today.

I just want to take a short amount of time to comment on some of the changes that the committee has recommended, but also some of the more substantive points about what we need in terms of an enduring framework when these events do happen in the future, as they no doubt will.

The first point that I want to note is around geographic boundaries. I will just single out a submitter: Dr Dean Knight from Victoria University. During both bills, actually, we’ve had some very useful exchanges with Dr Knight. I want to thank him for the contribution he’s made to both of the bills that we’ve passed. One of the suggestions he made was for us to potentially have two tiers of councils, because his concern—and it’s a fair concern—is that if you put in place an Order in Council, it may potentially apply to all of the areas that were affected. It’s a fair point and it’s something that we grappled with and talked about a lot at select committee.

What we ended up recommending—and I note that the Minister for Emergency Management does include this in his Supplementary Order Paper—is to amend clause 8(1)(a)(ii), which requires that the making of an order only be recommended if the relevant Minister is satisfied that the order’s extent is not broader than is reasonably necessary to address the matters that gave rise to order. What we have suggested is to include clarification that that includes the geographical application. I note that Mr McKelvie has already mentioned an example of this which we talked about, which is around clearing of waste or potentially the burning of tanalised timber, and that what is important is that if an Order in Council of that nature is made, it’s only made in the specific geographic area where that particular activity needs to occur; that it wouldn’t then be applied to the entire area that is covered in the scope of the bill. So that’s something that the committee was united on, submitters made very clear points about, and it was important that we recommended that change. So that will be a very useful change.

The second observation that I just want to make is around the importance of ongoing parliamentary scrutiny. Other members have pointed out the role that the Regulations Review Committee plays. The committee’s view was that it would be appropriate, post-enactment, for a parliamentary committee to be operating a review of both the legislation that we’re introducing today, and also the ongoing application of it over the coming years. So while the majority of us on the committee didn’t feel the need to include that in the actual legislation, and actually held the view that that wouldn’t be appropriate, the view very much is that that does need to occur on an ongoing basis. We acknowledge that Orders in Council do give extra power to the executive and that, in New Zealand, constitutionally we do hold Parliament to be sovereign and we do need to ensure that we’re always having as many checks and balances as we can. So that was something that, again, the committee was united on in terms of wanting to see some ongoing parliamentary scrutiny from a select committee.

We added, as others have pointed out, some recommendations around panel members and some of their knowledge. We particularly singled out the need for people with expertise in public health, because we acknowledge that some of the decisions that may be made through an Order in Council could have an impact on public health, and having that expertise so that we get the right balance between recovery and also environmental protection and public health is very important. We also added just the broad group of primary industries, because we note that, in some of the areas affected, a large number of the areas are horticultural, agricultural, and potentially fisheries areas, and that some expertise would be helpful for the panel.

One other small point I want to make is around the length of the legislation and how long it will be in place for, because some have commented that it could be a shorter period, similar to what we’ve had with COVID legislation. Actually, COVID legislation’s quite different to what we’re doing, in terms of its application. Previous legislation from Christchurch and from Kaikōura did have longer periods of time. Part of that is because, for organisations like Waka Kotahi, building a road isn’t something that just happens in a month or so; it is actually something that will happen over a number of years. So officials’ advice to us, which I think was really helpful, is that Waka Kotahi need some certainty on an ongoing basis to ensure that they can do some, what will be, very, very large infrastructure projects.

Finally, I just wanted to finish by just talking about our legislative framework. There is a large piece in the select committee report, and it’s an area where Mr Court and I do agree. We have risks, for those of us who live in the South Island, we have risks from the Alpine Fault potentially doing its thing. We have developed bespoke legislation over the last few years but the select committee held the view that we probably do need something that is purposeful in this area. But what I would say is that that would never take away the need for something that is bespoke, because each event is unique and will need an application of unique legislation for that particular circumstance.

So I think that, through this process, the select committee has identified, as well as what we need to do for this legislation, some of the things that we may need to do into the future. I hope that our commentary on that will satisfy those submitters who had concerns that we really did listen and we really did consider the concerns that they raised.

So it has been a privilege for everyone involved to put this bill through today. The goal, as I said at the beginning of my speech, is that we are here to support the people affected by Cyclone Gabrielle to rebuild. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Severe Weather Emergency Recovery Legislation Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 98

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34.

Noes 22

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance with the determination of the Business Committee, this bill is set down for committee stage. I declare the House in committee for this consideration of the Severe Weather Emergency Recovery Legislation Bill.

In Committee

Parts 1 to 4, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, the House is in committee on the Severe Weather Emergency Recovery Legislation Bill. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 6 and the preliminary provisions in Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

TANGI UTIKERE (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Are there any objections to this? There is none. The question is that Parts 1 to 4, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Just a brief call, really, first to acknowledge the Minister in the chair, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, but also to acknowledge the very hard-working members of his team—I suppose they’re not his team, really; they’re our team—behind him, who, I think, did a pretty amazing job in a difficult environment, putting together a bill that has been discussed in the second reading; whilst, to some people, relatively contentious, none the less absolutely necessary, and my view is that a vote against this bill is, effectively, a vote against those people who have been significantly affected by the events of the couple of cyclones that went through the country.

Chris Penk, who’s our spokesperson in this area, has put together a number of Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) relating to the bill, which clearly were discussed—almost all these issues. In fact, all the issues in the SOPs were discussed at various stages during the select committee, and they’ve turned up in the form of SOPs here today, and I guess they’re probably—and I’m not speaking for the other parties—in all cases that I can see, issues that you might have liked to include in this bill in an ideal world. This isn’t an ideal world, and I think, if we ask anyone who’s affected by the events of these cyclones, their ideal world won’t return for quite some time. To quote Gerry Brownlee—and a number of other speakers from earlier, actually—in the debate on the second reading, the things that this Act allows will not directly impact their lives for quite some time, but none the less they will impact them, and I think it’s very positive.

So I guess, from my perspective—I don’t intend to keep the Minister answering questions for ever—there are a number of SOPs in the name of Chris Penk on the Table today, and one or two of them tests things that we discussed quite significantly at the select committee stage. I wonder whether the Minister might like to comment just briefly on the “necessary or desirable” test, which was discussed, I think, by almost every party in the course of those discussions in the select committee. I think that’s an interesting point for the Minister just to elaborate very quickly on. As I said, Mr Penk has put a number of other SOPs in the process today, one requiring the Auditor-General’s written opinion, and that might be an issue that’s worth discussing as well.

So, Madam Chair, that’s just a very brief comment from me on this and a couple of questions for the Minister if he wishes to answer them.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): Thank you very much, and I’d like to acknowledge the member Ian McKelvie and thank him very much for this comments, and indeed his acknowledgment of the work that has been put in by officials and those that work here in the select committee. He’s dead right that what this Parliament has asked of them over the last few days has been extraordinary, and they have delivered at every step. So good on him for acknowledging that, and I echo that sentiment.

In regard to his comments specifically to Supplementary Order Papers 335 and 336, I’m more than happy to do a brief comment on that. But, before I do that, I just want to reassure him that we looked at every Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in great detail and, where we were comfortable and where we were able to, we have tried to incorporate that into the Government’s SOP. In the areas where we haven’t, it doesn’t necessarily mean that we disagree, either. It’s just that, when we looked into it, the advice was that what the SOPs were suggesting could be done by the bill as it stands. So we tried to be as collaborative as the National Party has been through this.

But, in regards to Supplementary Order Paper 335, proposing that “necessary or desirable” is replaced with “in accordance with the purposes of this Act”, we did look into this. So “necessary and desirable” is the appropriate threshold for making orders under the Act, and “in accordance with the purposes” is, in essence, the same as “necessary or desirable”. But, to get to the point, we’ve been advised that there are over 200 statutes that use the “necessary or desirable” test, and, on that basis, we were comfortable to keep it in the bill.

In regards to Supplementary Order Paper 336, which proposes that the Attorney-General must assess whether Orders in Council are consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—the Attorney-General must provide this assessment in writing—this would, essentially, create a pressure point as Orders in Council are developed. The Minister can determine the appropriate individuals and organisations to engage with, including whether advice should be sought from the Attorney-General. This amendment, therefore, we didn’t think was justified, but, again, we appreciate the fact—as you could tell; there was a range of them—all of them were constructive, and all of them were a genuine attempt to try and improve the bill in the point of view of the member.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Can I also acknowledge officials who’ve done a lot of work on the bill and recognise that the Green Party’s concern is with the “trust us” approach to Government agencies. It’s certainly not to senior managers and individuals within those organisations; it is the principal issue of the executive and Government agencies having a lot of power under this bill.

One of the many things that was very helpful in the departmental report was that there is a list attached, as Appendix 3, of the Acts that have been included in the Schedule and a very summary reason of why they have been included. There were a number of submitters who were really concerned with the Climate Change Response Act 2002 being one of the Acts that could be overridden by an Order in Council, but the officials made it clear that there may be an Order in Council here around extending the deadlines for participants to submit notices in their emissions returns under the emissions trading scheme (ETS) because there are over 300,000 hectares of forest in the affected regions in the ETS.

But Supplementary Order Paper 341 in my name—given the very broad purposes that clause 3 has, the Green Party’s wanting to provide for climate change resilience, because this is not core in the purpose at the moment. There’s a reference to resilience, but not in relation to adaptation and not in relation to the investment priorities for the recovery, and I would be interested in the Minister’s response, as he’s said it wasn’t justified to include a reference to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but didn’t give reasons. It would be of some assistance if he could explain whether the Government also sees it not being justified to include a more specific reference to provide in clause 3(1)(a) for climate change - resilient planning, rebuilding, and recovery—explain why that is. Because given these events, climate change and our broken climate contributed to them, and we are, as others have noted, going to experience more of them, why won’t the Government allow a greater focus on ensuring that the rebuilding and the recovery is climate resilient and is really adapting to the reality we face with the broken climate?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member Eugenie Sage for her contribution and her constructive contributions throughout this process thus far. While the Government didn’t feel the need to include this, it doesn’t mean that the Government disagrees with what the member is saying. Of course what she’s outlining is vitally important, but under clause 3(1)(a)(iv) of the bill it does provide that one of the bill’s purposes is facilitating the restoration and resilience of the environment. In our view, we felt that that covered the intent of what the member was outlining. Of course climate change is a hugely important factor in this; that’s what’s driving the severity of these weather events and that’s what’s driving the frequency of them. And it touches on many of the concerns that were raised by members in their second reading speeches. There’s no denying that. But for the purpose of what the member’s hoping to achieve, we were confident that as it stands that covered that intent.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, there were a number of different options available to the Government at the time this legislation was developed. A few weeks ago, another piece of severe weather legislation was brought to the House which made specific amendments to the Resource Management Act, to the Local Government Act, and to the Food Act, for example. At the time, I questioned you and officials who came to select committee on that bill about why we weren’t doing more to make the Resource Management Act more flexible, why we couldn’t do more to make, say, the Land Transport Act more flexible so that local councils or Waka Kotahi could use the money that they’re currently forced to use for walking and cycling and instead reallocate it to roads, bridges, and improving resilience.

We were told to expect another bill to come which would solve a lot of those problems, and yet what we have is a smoke-and-mirrors bill, Minister, which says, “Look, Ministers can amend by Order in Council any one of 27 Acts, and they can do anything the Minister wants it to do.” It turned out that when the good old engineers and planners from Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency came to the Governance and Administration Committee last week, they said, “Oh, that’s what we want to do, Simon. We want to be able to move money around from bucket to bucket. We need some changes made to the Land Transport Act and to the Land Transport Management Act.”, and councils said, “We want to do the same. We need some changes to the Local Government Act.”

So why on earth, Minister, weren’t those specific changes to legislation, that could’ve enabled councils and the roading agency responsible for administering taxpayer- and ratepayer-funded budgets enabled, then? Instead, we’ve got this bill, and now we still have to wait weeks, no doubt, for an Order in Council to be generated, which may well do just that but which could’ve been done already.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): Well, on the one hand, in his second reading speech, the member criticised the process for happening too quickly, and then at the end of his speech he said the Government should just get on with it, so I’m struggling to understand what the member’s position is.

Right throughout, there’s been politicisation of this to try and make various points. At the first bill, that very member identified one area that we all agree needs to happen, and we pointed out in response that this bill will enable it to happen, and it will. So, ultimately, we must remember—he’s referred to it as a smoke-and-mirrors bill. This bill is based on the Hurunui/Kaikōura legislation, which the ACT Party voted for, and I do wonder if that’s because at that time they had an arrangement with the Government and this time they’re in Opposition. I think that sort of behaviour for something so serious reflects very poorly on the party.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Look, I just want to clear it up for people watching at home and for the Minister and for everyone in this House: the ACT Party is not seeking to politicise this. What we’re asking for is for urgent and specific action that gives confidence to those people who are seeking to recover.

So I just want to speak to a Supplementary Order Paper that ACT has tabled, which talks about actually putting a time limit on the Orders in Council that the Minister—this Minister of Local Government, or a Minister for a Resource Management Act, or another Minister who might be responsible for transport. It says if they want to create an order, it needs to be approved by the House of Representatives within a certain amount of time or it becomes revoked. That was a check; that was a balance that the Government proposed when it came to the COVID-19 recovery legislation. This text here is cut and paste from the Government’s own COVID-19 recovery legislation, which included provision that every 90 days or so, that legislation was brought back to the House so that if the Government wanted to make any changes, they could table it, we could debate it—then the Government used its majority to pass it. If Opposition parties had any suggestions as to how the response could be improved, it could be debated and the Government might—as the Minister has acknowledged—take up some suggestions from submitters at select committee or from other members on the select committee, and make some changes. But that’s not what the Government’s chosen to do.

What they’ve chosen to do is to give themselves “Henry VIII” powers to change up to 27 pieces of legislation for up to five years, and to give a minimum of three days’ notice to a review panel that these changes, these orders are necessary. And so what ACT is asking—and Minister, I’d just like you to explain why there is no time-limiting clause which would limit the relevant period that these orders are valid for, the longer of which would be 10 sitting days of the House after the order was made; 60 days after the date the order was made as an alternate; or any other period that the Minister might want to specify in the legislation. That wouldn’t stop the order from operating. It wouldn’t undermine any instructions or actions taken when the order was in force. But what it would do is provide a check, provide a balance from Parliament and from elected members who could scrutinise the order; the actions of the Government; what are the costs and benefits; is it doing what it said it would; and actually give New Zealanders some confidence that this Government’s directions, instructions, orders, and actions are working.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): I thank the member. Again, this bill is based on that which was passed by Parliament after the Hurunui/Kaikōura earthquake. This bill’s checks and balances have been significantly strengthened since then, and through the select committee process there’s been further improvements. The ACT Party was happy to vote for the bill then, and so they should feel comfortable that, given the strengthened checks and balances, this bill will ensure through the parliamentary process that those Orders in Council will get adequate scrutiny. But I would point out that a significant problem with this Supplementary Order Paper is that there’s likely to be very large infrastructure projects which will take a very long time to complete, and having a provision that requires it to be continually coming back to the House will ultimately undermine certainty in those projects; that’s likely to undermine the level of investment that we might be able to attract, or indeed those companies that wish to seek the contracts to deliver that work. Uncertainty in these sorts of things slows things down—the very thing that the ACT Party is urging us not to do.

SIMON COURT (ACT): I’d just like to draw the Minister for Emergency Management’s attention to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 345, clause 7A(4), where the concern he raises that if an Order in Council was to expire or be automatically revoked, that would undermine the ability of the Government to engage in, say, contracts or with contractors or on projects that lasted a long period of time. That, absolutely, is not the case. What 7A(4) provides for—it says quite clearly that revocation of the order does not undermine or affect the validity of any action taken to give effect to that order while it’s in place. So, Minister, the ACT Party—a party of practical people; I’m an engineer—are thinking about this kind of thing. We believe that this SOP provides not only a check and a balance on the use of the Order in Council powers, which we accept are necessary at times—that’s how secondary legislation is made; that’s how national environmental standards are proposed—but there is a check and a balance, and there’s also enough flexibility for the Government to engage in contracting. So, Minister, would you just please acknowledge that is in fact a feature of this SOP?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): There’s not really a question there, Madam Chair. I mean, it’s turning into a debating point now. I’ve addressed the member’s question initially. I was referring to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in question. We clearly have a different view. The Government doesn’t feel that what’s proposed in the SOP is necessary. And I thank for the member for the detailed explanation, but there wasn’t really a question there.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to query with the Minister—and this is a specific inclusion in Schedule 2; the piece of legislation in question is the Immigration Act 2009. I would like to know what advice the Minister has received from, say, the Minister of Immigration or from Cabinet or officials around the reason for including the Immigration Act. The reason I ask that is because the Minister of Immigration has immense powers in the immigration space; in terms of visa creation, change of rules—he can basically do whatever he likes in immigration instructions, and very seldom needs to actually amend the Immigration Act itself. So I’d like to allow the Minister to talk about that, because the broader issue here is that if somehow this Act was included almost by mistake, or just for the sake of it, then that creates a few sort of confidence issues with other pieces of legislation that might be in Schedule 2. So that would be quite good to hear the Minister’s thoughts on this.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): The whole point of this legislation is to make the recovery happen as smooth and quickly as possible, and to make sure that there isn’t inflexible barriers in front of things preventing the recovery to happen. In order for the recovery to occur across each of the regions that have been affected by the severe weather event, we are likely to require labour force in order to perform that—we saw that in Christchurch, and to a slightly lesser degree, but not insignificantly, in Kaikōura. What we don’t want is for something to come up that would require an adjustment to immigration rules to meet the demand. By not including it, we have then found that we have hit a barrier that we didn’t anticipate. I would much rather include it and find that it’s not required, than not include it and find that it is required and we stall things unnecessarily.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Well, just in response to that, notwithstanding everything the Minister just said about labour shortages and needing to get people—the point of the question is that the entire immigration system can be changed to meet those needs and instructions, so you don’t actually need to amend the Act. So the question remains: why is the Act there at all?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): I’ve already answered that.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Minister, we’ve heard a lot about managed retreat. People of West Auckland, where I live, have been flooded out of their homes, some on more than one occasion, and most recently on the weekend of 26-27 January, flooded out of their homes, terrified, and are still out of their homes, many of which are red-stickered. It’s quite clear that they live in an area which is subject to flooding, extreme natural hazards, and it’s unsafe for them to return to their homes.

What many people are seeking is a formula for some type of compensation, if that’s available, so that should they not be able to return to their homes or rebuild on their land, they will receive compensation so they can move on and get on with their lives. This is becoming even more urgent as children and their families are not able to find accommodation next to the local school or where they would normally do their afterschool sports activities. You’ve got entire communities at Muriwai and Pīhā who are cut off or still living behind traffic management and barriers who can’t resume their lives because in many cases they don’t know what is going to happen.

What the ACT Party would like to do is to see this bill provide a lot more confidence for people that if the Government intends to take their land, because a Government agency believes that it’s unsafe for them to reoccupy that land, they receive adequate compensation. And what ACT is proposing in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 346 is to insert a new clause 7A, which refers to Part 5 of the Public Works Act, and that basically ensures that if private property is taken or damaged—I mean, sometimes you might have to track a digger over someone’s land in order to fix something—the existing provisions of the Public Works Act and the formulas in there would entitle these landowners for compensation to be paid. So, Minister, would you give a view on ACT’s proposal that the Public Works Act form the basis of compensation for land taken, including for managed retreat, which potentially may come under an order created by this Act, Minister?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): The Public Works Act sets a model for determining how compensation is set for compulsorily acquired property based on current market value. Properties that have been damaged would be subject to current market value with the damage, not their pre-damage value. Supporting this SOP reduces the ability of the Government to decide on a bespoke compensation scheme in it and choices about how the valuation of the property is dealt with.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Minister, the reason the ACT Party proposes that the Public Works Act, Part 5, is applied is because that is a well-understood basis to assess the taking or the damage of private land by the Government for what are no doubt legitimate purposes, and that gives people confidence. There is case law around that. There is a way for people to identify what they should be entitled to. It’s when the New Zealand Transport Agency needs to take the front of the farmer’s yard and use that to widen the road.

Anyone can look at formula and say, “Yes, we agree that that’s how much we should be paid.” What the Minister has just stated quite clearly is that the Government is coming up with a different formula. So, Minister, will that formula be consulted on? When will we know about it?

When will the people of Hawke’s Bay who have been threatened that they won’t be able to return to their properties because they’re too unsafe, the people of Muriwai and Pīhā, and the people of Waimoko Glen in Swanson in West Auckland—when will they know what this formula is, because they’ve been quite clear what they want. They want to be compensated for their land at a value that allows for them to move on and go and restart their lives in a place where it’s safe to rebuild. Minister, will you tell us a bit more about this formula?

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Madam Chair.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): Apologies to the Hon Duncan Webb. The member Simon Court did not accurately reflect what I said, so I’ll read it out to him again: supporting this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) reduces the ability of the Government to decide on a bespoke compensation scheme in it, and choices about how the valuation of the property is dealt with. That doesn’t signal that something is coming; what it signals is that if the Government did decide to, they would be restricted in their choices if they adopted this SOP.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I move, That the question be now put.

SIMON COURT (ACT): I just want to ask the Minister: would he consider including a person on the review panel who has experience with the delivery of infrastructure?

The Government is going to pass—no doubt, create—many Orders in Council, which involves officials from Government departments coming up with a list of legislation that needs to be modified or a set of rules that need to be developed, and that’s to change bits of primary legislation. It could be the Land Transport Act, it could be the Local Government Act.

But on the review panel of up to 12 people who will review these Orders in Council—could be in as little as three days they’ll have to review them—the Minister hasn’t provided for anybody with experience in the delivery of infrastructure. Yet the Minister has himself said here in the House this afternoon, that the Government expects to be undertaking very, very large-scale infrastructure projects as part of the recovery.

Minister, would you care to explain why you haven’t included a person with delivery of infrastructure or that skill on the panel, and whether the Government would accept making that modification here at the committee stage?

Hon Eugenie Sage: And before the Minister does that—

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaking specifically to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 347, the purpose of the panel is not to provide representation of various interests, but to provide the knowledge, expertise—or expertise in the matters listed—when considering draft Orders in Council. The point being is that there is nothing in the bill to prevent the Minister from appointing other skill sets and expertise to the panel if it is needed. That is why, in part, we’ve chosen to go with a larger panel—to give greater scope, to include expertise when it’s required. In short, we don’t feel that the SOP is required to achieve the goal that it’s promoting.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): My apologies, Madam Chair. Thank you. Could the Minister for Emergency Management also expand a bit on some comments he made in his second reading speech, I think, about his views on a cross-party forum. It’s not something that the bill provides for but it has been used in the past, and Mr Penk has a Supplementary Order Paper about it. But it is another opportunity of providing parliamentary scrutiny, so would he be able to expand on that? Thank you.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): Yeah, I thank the member for that. We have absolutely no concern about the Governance and Administration Committee reviewing the bill and the Orders in Council, etc.—none at all. We looked at it, and there is only one incidence previously, in the history of the House, where Parliament has moved a bill instructing a select committee. So we’ve taken very seriously the concerns that were raised around the speed at which this bill has had to go through, and I felt, as Minister, uncomfortable looking to address those concerns by proposing something that also was very rare. So we thought a pragmatic way about it would be to—in the second reading speech, as I did—invite the committee to do that; not set perimeters on that, let the committee decide, but, in doing so, give a very clear indication that the Government would support that and is supportive of what the member’s proposing.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you—very briefly, Madam Chair. So, Minister, thank you for explaining that the Minister responsible will have the ability to appoint, potentially, somebody with delivery of infrastructure experience. Would the Minister be able to enlighten the House—because we understand that Sir Brian Roche is leading an investigation into cyclone recovery, into the response to Cyclone Gabrielle—as to what that organisation, that working group, which has experience in delivery of infrastructure, might have shared with the Minister that might give the House some confidence that the recovery will proceed at pace?

HELEN WHITE (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): In response to the previous question, Sir Brian Roche is leading the task force; he’s not leading an investigation. The task force has been set up to ensure that the Government’s support of the locally led recovery is as efficient and as streamlined as possible.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 108

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 9

ACT New Zealand 9.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 348 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Eugenie Sage’s amendment to clause 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 341 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 44

New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 73

New Zealand Labour 64; ACT New Zealand 9.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Simon Court’s amendment inserting new clause 7A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 345 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 9.

Noes 74

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Simon Court’s amendment inserting new clause 7A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 346 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 9.

Noes 74

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Chris Penk’s amendments to clauses 8 and 9 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 335 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 9.

Noes 74

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Eugenie Sage’s amendment to clause 8 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 342 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 9.

Noes 64

New Zealand Labour 64.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Chris Penk’s amendment to clause 8 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 336 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 9.

Noes 64

New Zealand Labour 64.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Chris Penk’s amendment to clause 9 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 337 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 9.

Noes 64

New Zealand Labour 64.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s amendment to clause 13 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 332 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 12

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 107

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 9.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s amendment replacing clause 13(3) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 333 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s remaining amendment inserting clause 13(2)(a) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 333 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 12

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 107

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 9.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Simon Court’s amendments to clause 13 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 347 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. Chris Penk’s amendment to clause 13 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 334 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Chris Penk’s amendment to clause 13 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 338 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 9.

Noes 64

New Zealand Labour 64.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Chris Penk’s amendment to clause 19 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 339 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 9.

Noes 74

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The Hon Eugenie Sage’s amendment deleting clause 19 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 343 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Hon Eugenie Sage’s remaining amendments deleting clauses 20 and 21 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 343 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 19

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 9.

Noes 98

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Chris Penk’s amendment inserting New Part 2A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 340 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 9.

Noes 64

New Zealand Labour 64.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Eugenie Sage’s amendment to clause 34 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 19

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 9.

Noes 98

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Parts 1 to 4, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 98

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34.

Noes 19

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 9.

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

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The committee has considered the Severe Weather Emergency Recovery Legislation Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance with a 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 Recovery Legislation Bill be now read a third time.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank submitters who considered the bill in such a short time. Even though the consultation phase was short, the bill has undoubtedly been improved. I also want to acknowledge the Governance and Administration Committee for their collegial approach, their careful consideration of the views of submitters, and the thoughtful recommendations they made.

This omnibus bill will support and provide relief to local authorities and communities in those areas affected by the recent severe weather events in the North Island. The bill supports these areas as they shift towards recovery efforts by providing the flexibility to speed up those efforts through the use of Orders in Council. The bill also sets out safeguards to ensure this flexibility is used sensibly. The bill also sits alongside the recently passed Severe Weather Emergency Legislation Act as part of the broader Government support package for affected communities.

The Government has accepted the vast majority of the Governance and Administration Committee’s recommendations and incorporated them into the bill through a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). I wish to take a few minutes to run through the most significant of these changes. I think it is important to briefly outline these changes for the House, since there wasn’t an opportunity to do so during the second reading of the bill.

Firstly, I want to talk about the Severe Weather Events Recovery Review Panel. Under the bill as introduced, the Minister responsible for cyclone recovery or the associate must consider appointing members with specific experience and expertise, such as in the law, environment, protection, climate change, local Māori interests, and other community interests in the affected area. SOP 348 amended the membership of the panel by expanding the knowledge and expertise of its membership. The SOP broadened the specified areas of experience and expertise by adding in health protection, primary industries, and emergency resilience. To me, these additions will only make the panel more effective in its role of scrutinising draft Orders in Council.

The bill as introduced also required the Minister to consult the Regulations Review Committee, or each leader of the political party represented in the present or previous Parliament, if that is not practicable. The SOP clarified that party political leaders are only intended to be consulted during an interregnum when Parliament has been dissolved or has expired and that this requirement only applies to leaders in the most recent Parliament. I should note that for any Orders in Council proposed to add more Acts to the list of legislation in Schedule 2 of the bill, I have opted to retain the test requiring the unanimous or near unanimous support of political party leaders. I consider this test is often used in the House Business Committee and does not need to be specified in this bill.

This SOP also allows relevant Ministers to extend the time frame for the Regulations Review Committee to provide comments on draft Orders in Council, which is within three working days, as currently set out in the bill. I think this is a sensible amendment and it will provide additional time for the committee to scrutinise the draft Orders in Council.

The SOP also addresses a point the committee and submitters raised by reiterating that Orders in Council are to be no broader than geographically necessary. Keeping the scope of any orders tight in this way will help ensure the powers are not exercised beyond where they need to be.

As I mentioned during the second reading debate, I would again like to extend an invitation for an appropriate select committee to conduct a review of the powers contained in the bill. I think this will be a really useful exercise, given the short time frame in which the bill has progressed. I also think a post-enactment review by a select committee will go some way to addressing the concerns raised by submitters. The select committee process will complement the ability of the courts to review ministerial decisions about the making of orders, reflecting the valuable and ongoing contribution that independent processes operating by convention can provide.

Lastly, I am appreciative of the efforts of this House for considering this bill within truncated time frames. Despite this constraint, there were many considered and intelligent views on points of debate in the bill during the committee of the whole House stage. I appreciate the cross-party support in this House for supporting the best recovery efforts possible to meet the needs of affected communities.

I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the efforts put in by officials and by clerks and the select committee team—many people here at Parliament and through agencies that have worked incredibly hard in a short period of time to work with the committee, incorporate its recommendations, working with officials to come up with something that I think this Parliament should be pretty proud of, given the circumstances.

This bill will facilitate Aotearoa’s recovery from the recent severe weather events and help our communities bounce back to being their vibrant, best selves. I commend the bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It gives me some pleasure to speak on this bill, but no pleasure on behalf of the people affected by it—because clearly, the events and the tragic effect it will have on those people’s lives for quite some time to come will be felt by them. And I think that this bill will go some way to alleviating some of those fears for them.

I was just thinking, as I was thinking about the time of the day, that if we could use this bill to short circuit the Ōtaki to north of Levin bypass road, I’d get home an hour quicker tonight—so seeing as I can’t, I might as well stand here talking, because it’s going to take me—

Hon Member: No!

IAN McKELVIE: Ha, ha! Clearly that won’t be used for that purpose, Mr Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The opening of the road might be more desirable, Mr McKelvie, but carry on.

IAN McKELVIE: There’s no magic solution to this, to recovering from these types of disasters, and the National Party fully supports the Minister’s objectives in passing this bill. We’re confident that the bill will make a difference, and we’re also very mindful of the fact that we’re going into an election time, and that could very well be a different Minister in six months’ time running this process. So I think we had to put in place a process that could work for all, and make sure that those who may or may not have to take over at any stage in the future have the opportunity to progress the activities that the Government of the day initiates.

Many decisions can’t be made in a hurry in these sort of events, and we’ve had discussions today about retreat. These sort of decisions can’t be made until other decisions have been made as to what you repair and what you don’t—and I mean, the most obvious example of this is flood banks: if you’re not going to rebuild flood banks, then you’re going have to retreat a whole lot of people. If you are going to rebuild flood banks, then you’ve got to consider how you rebuild the infrastructure inside those flood banks. I think I’ve said before in this House that the example of Palmerston North’s a very good one, where the flood banks were built to a to a 200-year return period standard after the 2004 event, and they’ve worked beautifully. And I think, if you think about the Hawke’s Bay, these decisions are going to have to be made long before any other decisions can be made around retreat. Also, those decisions, on the whole, are made by communities, whereas whether you rebuild your house or not—or rebuild your business or not—is generally going to be made in partnership with the insurance company and yourselves, or the individuals. And so there’s many different ways these decisions are going to be made. And the reason for the longer, I guess, period this bill operates for, is that some of these decisions won’t be made in a hurry, and they just can’t be. So that’s the need for the bill to be extended and to run on for some five or six years in some cases, and the Orders in Council especially.

I also want to acknowledge the Minister and the work of the select committee, basically, for acknowledging the need to take this issue further—and I think that’s where the select committee inquiry will be extremely useful to future Parliaments, because I think if we do run a select committee inquiry, or a select committee runs it, then that inquiry will turn up a whole lot of the groundwork that’s required to put an Act in place in the future to act as a base for these types of disasters. As I said earlier, you’ll never get that base to be entirely transferrable; it’ll have to always be altered. But at least if the base is there, then I think submitters—and people are interested in what we do in Parliament—will have a lot more confidence; so at least we’ve got that part of work right, consulted on, and everyone’s had an opportunity to be part of it.

I just want to speak briefly—because there’s been some mention of this as well that all of these Orders in Council are going to have to be accompanied by funding. That’s a decision that can’t be made until the magnitude of the work required as a result of the Order in Council is understood, and that’s work for future governance—well, it’s work that’s required to be done in the future, because you can’t put in place the funding matters until you understand the magnitude of the need, and so I think these Orders in Council will almost all require Government funding as we move forward. That will be decided as we go along.

So, from the National Party’s perspective, we are very confident that this bill is as good as we could have got it, and as I said earlier—and I want to reiterate it—I have no fears that the seemingly extraordinary powers that we’re granting to Ministers and to the executive will be abused. I’m confident local communities will benefit greatly from the enactment of the legislation, and it also means that their infrastructure and all those sorts of things will be expedited in a much more measured fashion than they otherwise might have been. I think that we can be confident that we’ve made the right decision, and I guess we can only hope that those communities that are affected by this recover as quickly as possible. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): We certainly agree with the last statement by Mr McKelvie, that the Green Party hopes that the communities recover as quickly as possible. But also, he made the point that big decisions take a while. It’s important that big decisions such as the investment in stop banks, where new infrastructure goes, and what sort of infrastructure it is do take a while and that they engage the community strongly in making them, because it is the community that uses them and the community generally contributes funding. So the Local Government Act is one of the Acts in the Schedule that can be changed by Order in Council. We really encourage the Government to ensure that there isn’t too much truncation of the consultative procedures under that Act so that the community is really engaged.

In Christchurch, there was a district plan that went through a very expedited process under the Resource Management Act (RMA) to enable consents to be granted quickly, and the quarrying provisions in that plan, because they are so permissive because of the need for quarry materials in the reconstruction, have been an ongoing source of conflict with residents because of the effects of quarries not having adequate setbacks from residential areas, the health effects, the amenity effects from dust from those quarries. That is just one example of where a quick decision was made—a poor planning decision because it didn’t take account of the community’s needs and it put the needs of rebuilding to the fore. So people are suffering because of that. That’s why processes exist: to ensure that different aspects of the decision are examined and that as much information as possible can contribute to good decisions.

We also encourage the Government—others have talked about the big infrastructure projects, which are going to be required as part of the recovery. The Reserves Act is one of the pieces of legislation that could be subject to Order in Council to modify the permission processes relating to infrastructure reconstruction on reserves managed by Te Papa Atawhai Department of Conservation. We have a biodiversity crisis. There are significant impacts, often on indigenous vegetation and habitat, and we’d really encourage Ministers, when they’re looking at the scale of projects that will go through and be allowed by an Order in Council, to think about the potential impacts on nature and whether it’s appropriate that some big projects with a scope for big impacts go through the normal RMA and Conservation Act and Reserves Act processes to ensure that those effects are properly managed.

Similarly, there’s an ability to have an Order in Council for the Resource Management Act. Officials say that it may be around waiving the requirements to exclude stock for waterways, given the destruction of fences. That is all very sensible in those immediate areas where fences have been destroyed. But given that the Orders in Council can apply across the whole of the geographic area affected by severe weather, we don’t want to see those really hard-won requirements to get stock out of streams to protect waterway health wound back over any greater area where the properties’ fences have actually been destroyed. So the Green Party will be watching the Orders in Council closely. We do hope that a cross-party—more of a political group—forum is set up, not just the select committee review process, given the length of time that the bill will be in place once it becomes an Act.

We are pleased that there have been some more safeguards inserted in through the select committee process, which, once again, establishes that public submissions and select committee scrutiny always improves legislation. This Parliament is one of the fastest lawmakers in the West, and we still think that things could have been brought back to the whole of the Parliament, rather than just done through executive power, because of that public scrutiny that you get through the select committee.

As well as thanking officials, we’d particularly like to thank the Office of the Clerk, the very helpful assistance the office provided in options for increasing parliamentary scrutiny, one of which made it into the bill, and the work that legislative counsel does in advising the Regulations Review Committee, which will have another increase in its workload—as it did with the COVID legislation—in scrutinising these Orders in Council. The advice that legislative counsel provides to that committee is a critical part of its work.

The Green Party, as I’ve said in earlier speeches, is not supporting this because of the extent of executive powers, the broad-purpose ability to add new Acts through an Order in Council, but there have been some improvements through this process.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The ACT Party said we would work constructively with the Government on severe weather response legislation. On the first bill that was introduced to this House, over a month ago, we did work constructively with the Government and on the select committee and were happy to be able to nudge some changes. But it didn’t go far enough. What ACT was seeking, in fact, was an economic development plan and a significant liberalisation of the environmental rules, of the labour rules, and other constraints on rebuilding in places hit by severe weather. But ACT can’t support this bill, because of the “Henry VIII” powers that it gives Ministers in this Government and even a future Government, which, as the Hon Gerry Brownlee pointed out, might even involve an ACT Minister like me. We don’t think it’s acceptable for a Minister to have the powers that this bill confers on that Minister. But, again, Labour, in all its wisdom, believes that that’s what it needs. But why?

It’s been three months since Cyclone Hale, just after New Year 2023; 2½ months since West Auckland was flooded and Pīhā and Muriwai devastated by slips and flooding; and two months since Cyclone Gabrielle. We still don’t know what Labour would do to assist the recovery—we don’t know; it’s not clear. They’ve sent Sir Brian Roche and a task force. I would assume he’s lost up some metal road in Hawke’s Bay, because we haven’t heard from him! And the Minister, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, wasn’t prepared to say what he has found and what he has recommended to the Government. It would be really interesting and ACT would support a briefing into what Sir Brian Roche and the recovery task force have found, and how that might inform recovery.

We’ve heard a little bit from the Minister today that he’s considering bespoke legislation which would allow for the Government to value people’s land when it takes it off them if it says they can’t live somewhere any more. That’s what they call “managed retreat.” Well, ACT said, “Look, the Public Works Act has a formula. It’s fair. People understand it. If you disagree with it, you can go to court and litigate it.” But, instead, the Government is going to come up with its own formula, apparently. They’re going to make it up, and there’s going to be three days for the panel of experts to review it.

Then I want to come to managed retreat and where the Green Party is in this managed retreat debate, because, while we have had some very positive contributions from the Green Party, from the Hon Eugenie Sage, when it comes to pointing out flaws and suggesting amendments to the bill, what is completely missing is the climate adaptation Act that the climate Minister, Green Minister James Shaw, was supposed to introduce. Apparently it’s coming. Well, it would have been very helpful if there was already a piece of legislation which said how New Zealand might respond to sea-level rise, to ongoing flooding, and to other natural hazards. But despite a climate emergency being declared by Labour and Green MPs and Ministers, saying we’ve only got one more year—or two or three or four more years—before the planet burns, we still have no idea what they think climate adaptation should look like. But the Green Party will continue to offer solutions around that that actually don’t help. What ACT will do will is offer practical solutions when it comes to working out formulas and actually adapting to climate change by funding, financing, and building infrastructure.

I just want to come very briefly to who wins from this piece of legislation. Well, clearly, the officials, who will be able to draft Orders in Council and won’t have to subject their proposed policy changes or changes to legislation to parliamentary scrutiny. The officials will win, and Government Ministers who are floundering around and still have no idea how they’re going to actually craft a response to those farmers, to those people in Hawke’s Bay whose land is covered in silt, to the pack houses who’ve had all their equipment destroyed, who have no apples to process—we have no idea, and they have no idea, what economic response, what support, what wage support, what capital support, what loan support might be available to them. They’re not just living in limbo; some of them are losing hope. As the farming representative Charlie Reynolds said this morning, they feel they’ve been abandoned, and the ACT Party says it’s unacceptable 2½ months since Cyclone Hale.

I just want to come, finally, to the people of Marlborough. This legislation covers a whole lot of regions, but it excludes Marlborough, and the Marlborough District Council and others, including engineers, submitted that actually Marlborough is the test case. Their roads were devastated. There are large areas of the Marlborough Sounds where jetties were decimated in floods and storms in 2022. And yet they are suffering under the same impenetrable red tape—the Resource Management Act—having to ask and beg for permission from a whole range of people in order to rebuild infrastructure. They’re also limited by the funding constraints that the New Zealand Transport Agency imposes on local councils in terms of what they can use money for from the Land Transport Fund. And Marlborough said we’d love some recognition, we’d love some support with our recovery, but we’re not included and our storm was just as bad.

I think that really signals how important it is that we move from a knee-jerk reaction, as this Government has done—supposedly great crisis managers, although the crisis manager in chief has just quit and gone off to the UN or some other country. But, look, what we really need is not knee-jerk crisis managers, we need a well-designed piece of recovery legislation as proposed by the New Zealand Initiative, and that would include establishing a recovery agency and a framework within which it would be much simpler and quicker to respond in the face of these—no doubt—emergencies we will face, whether it’s an earthquake, or a tsunami, or a volcano, or whatever it is.

So the ACT Party supports the submission that New Zealand Initiative made. And what we will also be seeking from the Minister is a briefing on the work that Sir Brian Roche and the task force has undertaken, because it will be very helpful for all parties in the House to understand what’s going on there.

We’ll also continue to advocate for property rights. We believe it’s important that people whose land might be taken by the Government or by councils, supposedly in the name of managed retreat, have the right to a fair assessment and a rapid assessment of their needs and of the value of their property if they’re to be told they can’t live there anymore. The people of West Auckland—the organisation West Auckland is Flooding—have been begging for a formula that enables people in their community, where they can’t return to their homes, to move on, and the ACT Party would urge the Government to get on with that. And we look forward to working constructively with the Government on what a fair formula might be.

But the ACT Party can’t support this piece of legislation. We won’t be supporting it today, but we encourage the Government to get on with the recovery, and to include all parties in the House in the method for doing that.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Severe Weather Emergency Recovery Legislation Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 98

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34.

Noes 21

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 2 May 2023. Thank you for your efforts this week, ladies and gentlemen, and enjoy Easter.

The House adjourned at 5.07 p.m.